[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 126 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9579-H9588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3161, AGRICULTURE, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 599 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 599
Resolved, That during further 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, the bill shall be considered as
read. No further debate on any pending amendment shall be in
order. A further period of general debate shall be confined
to the bill and shall not exceed 30 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations. The amendments printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House
and in the Committee of the Whole. Notwithstanding clause 11
of rule XVIII, no further amendment shall be in order except
those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. After a motion that the Committee rise has been
rejected on a legislative day, the Chair may entertain
another such motion on that day only if offered by the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the Majority
Leader or designee. After a motion to strike out the enacting
words of the bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII)
has been rejected, the Chair may not entertain another such
motion during further consideration of the bill.
[[Page H9580]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The gentleman from Massachusetts
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California, my very good, good friend, Mr. Dreier. All time yielded
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 599.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 599 provides for further
consideration of the FY 2008 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in strong
support of the underlying bill.
I want to thank my dear friend from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, the
chairwoman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for her work
on this bill and her passion for fighting hunger in this country and
around the world. I also want to commend Ranking Member Kingston and
Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for all of their efforts and
their hard work.
I very much regret that we have gotten to this point. I do not take
the idea of structuring debate on appropriation bills lightly.
Unfortunately, we have gotten to the point where structuring debate on
the Agriculture appropriations bill is the only way to pass the bill
before we break for the district work period.
As the distinguished majority leader so eloquently noted the other
day, we have spent hours and hours and hours, beyond historical norms,
to complete our work on the appropriations bills. Last June, Democratic
and Republican leaders came to an agreement that, in exchange for
allowing full and fair debate with up or down votes on dozens of
amendments, Republicans would allow the appropriation bills to proceed
through the House. We have been able to come to unanimous consents to
consider those bills, and they have largely passed with large
bipartisan majorities.
Now, I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle
were upset with the process used to consider the SCHIP bill, and after
our discussion in the Rules Committee last night, I understand their
concerns. But they have decided to use that frustration as an excuse to
prevent completion of our important appropriations work, and we do not
believe that that is in the best interest of the Nation. Clearly, my
friends on the other side have decided to abandon the June agreement,
and that is their right. But it is our responsibility, in the majority,
to complete these bills in a timely way.
Unfortunately, it has become clear that a small number of Members on
the other side was willing to use a filibuster-by-amendment strategy to
shut down the House and prevent us from completing our work. Mr.
Speaker, if Members wish to filibuster bills, they should run for the
United States Senate.
There is a difference between serious legislating and obstructionism.
And I believe that offering amendments to cut bills by $50,000 and then
$100,000 and then $101,000 and so on, and debating these bills forever
and ever and ever and using procedural mechanisms to unjustifiably
delay the consideration of bills, not to move serious legislation
forward, but to delay the consideration of bills, I think that's
obstructionism. And I think what we saw on the floor the other day was
obstructionism.
This rule makes in order 12 amendments, all of them Republican
amendments on a variety of issues. Many of what I would call the
``usual suspect'' amendments were made in order, amendments by members
of the Republican Study Committee to cut certain programs in the bill,
an amendment to cut funding across the board, an amendment from my good
friend, Mr. Flake, to eliminate earmarks.
Mr. Speaker, I also regret that tensions have risen over the last
several days. Perhaps it's inevitable before a break, and perhaps it's
the heat and humidity, but I hope that all of us can come back after
Labor Day refreshed and rededicated to doing the people's business in a
civil way.
Mr. Speaker, Hillary Clinton says ``it takes a village.'' Maybe for
us it takes a recess. In this business, your word is everything;
without it, there is no trust. And without any trust, this would be a
very, very unhappy place to work.
I thought we had a very good discussion in the Rules Committee last
night. I believe we understand each other and where we're coming from a
bit better. I know my friend, Mr. Dreier, and other members of the
Rules Committee are eager to look for ways that we can make this
process better. They have my word and I think the word of all of us on
the Democratic side that we want to work with them to make that happen.
In the meantime, however, we have a responsibility to do the people's
business. And the rule before us allows us to do that in an orderly way
that allows for vigorous debate and votes on amendments.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I begin by expressing my great appreciation to my friend
from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
I have to ask myself exactly why it is that we are here. One might
think that this is Groundhog Day. We've already passed a rule on the
Agriculture appropriations bill, and I would say to my friend, we've
already passed the so-called SCHIP bill, which proposes a cut for
seniors on the Medicare program and a massive tax increase for people
all across this country and perpetuates this generational warfare
challenge. That bill is behind us.
We have not had a single dilatory motion that I've seen since passage
of this SCHIP legislation, and yet the Rules Committee chose last night
to do something that, from all of the research that we have done, has
never been done in the history of the Republic.
It is true that on occasion we have, after lengthy debate, come back
with second rules when we were in the majority. For example, in 1995,
we came back with a rule on the Interior appropriations bill that, by
the definition of the new majority, would have been defined as an open
rule. It simply said there would be a preprinting requirement that was
put in order for all of the other amendments that would be offered
during the measure.
Mr. Speaker, never before have we seen a rule on an appropriations
bill come from the Rules Committee to the floor that self-executes one
amendment. But this rule doesn't self-execute one amendment; it self-
executes six amendments. This has never, ever been done.
We did, as my friend from Worcester said, have an interesting long
discussion last night. We were here until nearly 3:30 in the morning
yesterday, and then we had a lengthy discussion as we were waiting for
votes here on the floor last night up in the Rules Committee. And I
talked about the fact and my colleagues on our side talked about the
fact that this was unprecedented. And Mr. Hastings, the gentleman from
Fort Lauderdale, said, oh, well, will the world come to an end? The
world isn't going to come to an end. But one of the great privileges
that I have is working with our colleague, David Price, on our House
Democracy Assistance Commission. And we are, right now, engaged with 12
new and reemerging democracies around the world. I like to argue that
one election a democracy does not make.
It's really hard work building democracies. And in countries like
Lebanon, Afghanistan, Liberia, Kenya, Macedonia, the Republic of
Georgia, the Ukraine, Haiti, Colombia, East Timor, Indonesia, Mongolia,
countries that are moving towards democracy or have relatively young
democracies, we have been working with their new parliaments because we
know how important it is to have parliaments that have committee
structure, oversight of
[[Page H9581]]
the executive branch, libraries, members who can work to provide
constituent services. That's what this 20-member Commission that David
Price now chairs, and I'm privileged to serve as the ranking minority
member on, has been working on.
What we've done, Mr. Speaker, is we've said we have a 220-year
history in the United States House of Representatives. We don't claim
to have a corner on the truth, we don't know exactly how it's done, but
we do have experience. And Mr. Speaker, it saddens me greatly that as
we continue to work with these new and reemerging democracies for these
countries that are just beginning to have a taste of political
pluralism, the rule of law, and the opportunity to build democratic
institutions, that we, today, are once again restricting the
opportunity that the minority has had.
I will say that my friend has talked about breaking an agreement. You
know, there was an agreement, a bond that was talked about in last
year's election and a bond that was made with the opening speech that
was delivered by my California colleague, the gentlewoman from San
Francisco, our new Speaker, the first woman Speaker of the House of
Representatives. I regularly laud the fact that she has done that, the
first Californian and the first Italian American. I am very proud as a
Californian.
{time} 1415
But I will tell you that commitment was made on the opening day, and
has been made repeatedly, by my very good friend from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader, time and time again. We have
continued to hear about this promise that we will have a great new
sense of openness. We will have transparency. We will have
accountability. We will have the things to which we all supposedly
aspire. But what is it we have gotten here, Mr. Speaker?
As bad as you all say that we were when we were in the majority, as
bad as the now majority says that we were, Mr. Speaker, when we were in
the majority, we would have never contemplated self-executing five
amendments in a rule for an appropriations bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I'm sorry, but the record shows that in the year 2000, when
you were chairman, on three occasions, Transportation, Labor-H and
Agriculture, you reported self-executing rules.
Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I would just say,
were there six amendments that were self-executing in the passage of
any of those rules?
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield back to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. No. They were always Republican amendments, in contrast to
this, which are both Republican and Democrat.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, never before have we had
an action such as this, self-executing six amendments in passage of the
rule and completely shutting down the process. Mr. Speaker, never
before has this been done. I have a litany of colleagues who share my
outrage. They want to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, facts are a stubborn thing. At this point,
I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we have proceeded for 10 appropriation bills with an
open rule with an agreement we would reach a unanimous consent
agreement on those rules within the framework of the time that we spent
last year.
I said on the floor that we spent approximately 52 hours longer on
the first 10 bills than we had last year under unanimous consents that
Mr. Obey agreed to. I am informed by Mr. Obey that our staff has
recomputed the time, and when one includes the Agriculture bill, it is
closer to 80-plus hours longer under open rules. That was certainly not
shutting anybody down or out. That was not our intent. In fact, it was
not our practice. As I pointed out then, we complied, we think, with
the letter of that to which we agreed.
We now find ourselves in the context of trying to move forward on
very important legislation. This bill was open, of course, for debate
and amendment for an extended period of time. The debate was not used
for amendments or debate about the substance of the bill before us.
In fact, it is my understanding the Rules Committee talked to those
who wanted to offer amendments in this rule. It is not shutting out all
amendments. In fact, what it is doing is including a number of
amendments on both sides of the aisle. It includes in the self-
executing, to which the gentleman refers, a balanced group of
amendments, all of which, we think, will be agreed to.
Mr. Flake is going to offer some amendments, one I have a particular
interest in. He was given the choice of what amendments that he wanted
to offer. Yes, we have limited amendments, because we have limited time
and we want to complete this bill.
When we complete the debate on this bill, it will be just a little
shorter than the bill that was considered last year. Just a little. We
think it is fair. But we are here because we did not pursue the
agreement that we thought we had with the open-rule process.
Now, we still have one additional bill to go, the Defense bill. We
are discussing that. We are hopeful that perhaps we can proceed as we
have proceeded in the past, with an open rule on that bill.
But we are trying to facilitate the doing of the people's business.
We said we would do that. That is what we are doing. We believe that
Members have been treated fairly.
Yesterday, on SCHIP, there was a request of me to include an
additional hour of debate. That was agreed to. I think that was a good
and full debate. We had very significant differences on that bill. The
bill was approved by the House. I think this bill will be approved by
the House and moved. That will leave us just one appropriation bill. I
think by the end of this week, we will have passed all of our
appropriation bills.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know that my very good friend, the
distinguished majority leader, as am I, is an institutionalist. He is
just a little junior to me in this House. I came here just a few months
before he did in his special election in 1981.
Mr. HOYER. I will try to show the gentleman the appropriate respect,
given that seniority.
Mr. DREIER. That is the reason I reminded my friend of that, of
course, Mr. Speaker.
Let me just say that getting the people's business done is a priority
for every Member of this House. I recognize the responsibility of
ensuring that we move through with our appropriations work. As the
gentleman knows very well, we were able to complete the House's work on
appropriations bills in the past. The distinguished majority leader
wants to do that as well.
I do believe that if we look at the, you can call it a bump in the
road, we have had very, very strong disagreement, as I said earlier,
over the SCHIP bill. There was a lot of consternation about this. But
the fact of the matter is, the additional hour was granted. We have now
moved beyond that bill. We are now at nearly 2:30 in the afternoon, and
things have moved certainly relatively smoothly today on the floor. I
am just saying that I am very, very concerned about setting this kind
of precedent to the appropriations process itself.
I recognize we came forward with closed rules in the past. You all,
unfortunately, have had twice as many closed rules at this point from
the beginning of the last Congress. But on the appropriations process,
I just hope, for the good of the institution, that being the half of
the American people who won't be able to be heard, there were more than
60 amendments that were in the queue to be considered for this measure,
that we don't go down to only 12 amendments. I just find that very
troubling.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his observations, and I
reclaim my time.
[[Page H9582]]
Mr. Speaker, very frankly, as I have said, we have spent almost 80
hours more on the first 10 bills than we spent last year under the
unanimous consents we granted to you under Mr. Obey's leadership. Given
that fact, we considered a lot of amendments.
From my perspective, frankly, in a group of 435, the reason you have
a Rules Committee is because you can't possibly accommodate all 435
Members if they want to offer one.
Mr. DREIER. Thanks for telling me that. I was wondering.
Mr. HOYER. As the former chairman of the Rules Committee, you know
that.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, in my opinion, although we allowed it, there
were an extraordinary number of redundant amendments, 1.25 percent, 1
percent, .75 percent. I understand that. They were message amendments.
I understand making messages. That is part of what we are about.
This rule that the gentleman is very concerned about is a precedent.
Frankly, we argued for following the precedent of last year. That was
not done.
We are now trying to get the business of the people done, while at
the same time giving a fair number of amendments, as we do on almost
every other bill, but not every amendment. We think that we have done
that. We think that we are fair in terms of the amendments that are
included in the self-execution, because they are not just Democratic
amendments. There are a balanced, equal number of amendments, and one
other significant amendment I think will be unanimously supported, I
hope and believe, and will facilitate the consideration of this bill
and substantively move ahead the work of our country and our people.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I
mentioned the fact that this is the 27th year for the two of us to be
serving in this great institution. If one goes back and looks beyond
last year but instead at the appropriations process which during our
27-year period has been considered under an open process, there are
times when we would be here late at night voting on appropriations
bills in the past. It has allowed Members to work their will as they
have gone through this.
So while you have looked at the precedent of last year as part of
this agreement that you and Mr. Boehner had, the concern that I have is
that this is setting a precedent for the future, which is a very, very
troubling one.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat: We are hopeful that we will be
able to move forward in the future, next year, as we do the
appropriation process, consistent with what we did on the first 10
bills and what we may do on the twelfth bill, in a manner that honors
and respects one another's ability to make their point but also to do
the business of the people. That is what they expect us to do. That is
what we are going to do.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), a hard-working member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this highly
unorthodox rule and the unnecessary limiting process that is being
proposed and that was even talked about here on the House floor today.
Mr. Speaker, today, for the first time since my service in Congress,
the House is considering a rule for the Agriculture appropriations bill
that is something other than an open rule. It is also the first time
since I began my service that the Rules Committee reported out a
limited rule for an appropriations bill that self-executes amendments
and revisions to the base text of the bill that may not have withstood
the scrutiny of this Congress.
One of the self-executing amendments of particular concern that was
inserted late last night in the Rules Committee is included in part A
of this rule. It is described as adding a limitation, and I quote, to
effectively eliminate three West Virginia earmarks from the committee
report accompanying the bill.
Upon further review, it turns out that these three earmarks total
more than $1.5 million and were requested by Congressman Alan Mollohan
and would benefit the Canaan Valley Institute, a nonprofit established
by Congressman Mollohan.
This highly irregular inclusion of this self-executing provision of
the rule is particularly troubling, because the Canaan Valley Institute
is currently under investigation by the FBI. In March, when he
requested this funding, Congressman Mollohan certified that he had no
financial interest in any of the earmarks and affirmed the worthiness
of each project.
I strongly believe that this late-night maneuver was not properly
vetted through the regular order processes. As a result of that,
several serious questions have arisen.
I would like to engage the Democrat Member of the Rules Committee, my
friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), on a few questions about this
process.
The first question that I would yield to the gentleman on is, who
asked the Rules Committee to take this highly unusual action and what
explanation did they provide to justify the removal of Representative
Mollohan's earmarks?
Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman will yield, the distinguished chairman
of the Appropriations Committee, who is on the floor here today, Mr.
Obey, did. If you would like to ask him questions, you may.
Mr. SESSIONS. I am going to continue asking you questions, and I will
continue yielding to you. I appreciate the gentleman.
Did anyone on the Rules Committee inquire as to whether Mr.
Mollohan's certification of no financial interest had been proven in
any way deficient or inaccurate?
{time} 1430
Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say the reason these amendments are in the
self-executing rule is that we agree with you that under the
circumstances they should not be in the bill.
As I warned the House when we first started bringing appropriation
bills to the floor, our committee did not have enough time to
adequately get all of these amendments that were coming at us, and so
we asked for a process which would allow us during the month of August
to review all of them.
In the end the House decided they did not want to do that. One of the
major reasons is because Members of your party wanted to make certain
that we had an opportunity to deal with them on the floor now. I warned
at the time that meant that mistakes would be made. They were. When we
caught the mistake, I went to the Rules Committee and Mr. Mollohan
agreed that under the circumstances they ought to come out.
We ought to be congratulated for it, rather than being questioned
about it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time and continuing my dialogue with the
gentleman, in other words, you had figured out that they were
inappropriately inserted?
Mr. OBEY. No, we had determined that because they were in
controversy, for the good of the House they should not be considered at
this time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Continuing my dialogue with either gentleman, in as
much as the Mollohan earmarks were approved by the entire
Appropriations Committee, does the gentleman know whether the
appropriation Members on both sides of the aisle have been advised
about the reasons for canceling funding for the projects which they
have overwhelmingly approved with the knowledge that it was appropriate
at the time?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Let me simply say to the gentleman that I very much
regret the tone that the gentleman is taking here today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to yield the gentleman from Dallas an
additional minute.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, another question which I wish to ask is
whether the Rules Committee could advise Members seeking to remove
Member-supported earmarks from other pieces of legislation, whether
they might take
[[Page H9583]]
advantage of the precedent we are setting here today and whether they
might expect the Rules Committee to look favorably on similar requests
for self-executing provisions in the future?
Mr. Speaker, the reason why we ask these questions is because the
self-executing provisions of this rule are highly unusual and I believe
raise lots of questions. We look forward to asking these questions and
hope we get forthright answers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me finish what I was about to say to
the gentleman from Texas.
I very much regret the tone of his remarks here on the floor today.
Last night the gentleman talked about the need for civility and the
need for us to have more comity in this Chamber. It is clear today that
he obviously lost sight of at least the spirit of his remarks last
night. I regret that very much.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think we again need to remind ourselves why
we are here in this situation. And I don't like it, but we are here
because people need to experience the consequences of their own
actions, at least adults do.
Why are we here? We are here because as the distinguished majority
leader pointed out, despite the agreement that we felt we had reached
for consideration of the appropriation bills, we had seen more than 4
hours of dilatory action the last time this bill was on the floor. As a
result, this House was not able to complete action on a single
provision in the agriculture appropriation bill even though we were
told that the minority was really unhappy about something else totally
unrelated to that bill.
So they dragged this out for 4 hours during which we were able to
accomplish nothing. At the same time, the President is on the other end
of Pennsylvania Avenue. At the same time we have had foot-dragging on
the part of the minority on this bill, the President held a press
conference this morning in which he is attacking the Congress for not
moving these bills at a sufficiently rapid speed.
Secondly, I would point out that, as the distinguished majority
leader indicated, we have spent some 86 hours more debating
appropriation bills this session than we spent debating appropriation
bills the previous session when the now-minority party was then in
control. Why was that the case? Because last year we considered 144
amendments to those appropriation bills, whereas this year we have
considered 339 amendments. That is a 77 percent increase. It
illustrates why I keep referring to filibuster by way of amendment.
There comes a time when we have to face the fact that if the public's
work is to be done, we need to move these bills forward. It was very
clear that this bill was going nowhere the last time it was on the
floor. The distinguished majority leader informed the minority if that
was the case, we would have to go to the Rules Committee in order to
move the people's business forward. That is exactly what we have done.
With respect to his criticism about this rule containing self-
executing provisions, I would simply point out that on eight occasions
when the gentleman from California was chairman, his committee reported
out, and this House passed, self-executing rules.
In 2000, it occurred on the Transportation, Labor-HHS and Agriculture
bills.
In 2001, it occurred on Agriculture, Treasury-Postal, Foreign Ops and
Energy and Water.
In 2002, it occurred on the Interior bill. And I have them before me.
In each case, they contain the magic words ``provides that the
amendment or amendments printed in the Rules Committee report
accompanying the rule shall be considered as adopted.''
Let me simply point out that I think it is indeed regrettable that we
have had to adopt this approach in order to finish the public's
business on time. But in fact, if Members of the minority want to know
why it was required, all they have to do is look in the mirror.
Now I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. I will say in response to the assessment that the
gentleman provided of my service as chairman of the Rules Committee, I
never reported out a rule that shut down the entire process, which is
exactly what this rule is doing. With regard to self-executing items--
Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, with all due respect, this amendment
makes in order 14 amendments. The majority of those amendments are
Republican amendments. One of them is an amendment by the gentleman
from Arizona that in fact goes after a project in the district of the
majority leader. That is hardly shutting down the process.
Mr. Speaker, they were the ones who shut down the process 2 days ago
when they refused to allow us to consider a single new amendment during
a 4-hour period.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished minority leader.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from
California for yielding.
I come to the floor today to express my disappointment over where
this process has led us and the fact that we are going to shut down the
appropriations process and go to what we would refer to as martial law.
Now over the last several days it has become clear that our Members
are concerned about what has happened to the process of due
deliberation in the House. Over the last several days my name has been
taken in vain over the fact that there was an agreement reached earlier
this year between Mr. Hoyer and myself and Mr. Obey. And there was an
agreement we would bring earmark reform to the appropriation process,
and as part of that agreement that we would work towards a unanimous
consent request on each of the appropriation bills.
I want to tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, tell my friend from Wisconsin
that I feel as though I have kept my part of the deal. I have worked
diligently with our Members to try to come to an agreement that our
Members felt was fair. The gentleman outlined the number of hours that
we have taken on the appropriations bills this year. There is no
question that more time has been taken. And that is because we have had
a change in the majority here in Congress. We have had a serious change
in each of the appropriation bills in terms of the priorities of the
new majority versus the priorities of the former majority. So one would
expect that more time was going to be taken on these appropriations
bills this year.
But what brought all of this to an end was the process by which the
State Children's Health Insurance reauthorization was coming to the
floor where our Members were shut out of debate, where we were
presented with a 488-page bill at 11:30 one night and expected to be in
committee the next day ready to have committee action on a bill that
had never ever had a hearing.
Now as I mentioned to the gentleman the other night, all we seek on
this side is fairness. And so the tactics employed on the Ag
appropriations bill the other night was an opportunity for our Members
to try to come down and talk about their concerns with the process and
their concerns with that work product.
But the actions taken here today to shut the whole appropriations
process down, lock it under a rule, self-execute six amendments into
this process is unprecedented. I heard the gentleman over the last
several years talk about process and how the minority ought to be
treated. I heard it day after day.
And I might add to my friend that I had some sympathy for the
concerns that he raised. But as I mentioned the other night, all we
seek is to be treated the way you asked to be treated. That's all we
ask. We could have had a discussion about trying to come to a unanimous
consent request on the balance of this bill. We could have sat down and
tried to work through the process on the Defense appropriation bill so
we wouldn't have to go through this; but that opportunity wasn't
presented. So I stand here today with regret that we have had to come
to this point.
I am one who believes that there is a way we can disagree on our
policy differences here without being disagreeable; that there is a way
that the two sides can make their points without cutting the legs off
the other side.
But the actions here that are being taken will do nothing more than
stifle the ability of the minority to make its
[[Page H9584]]
case, the minority who represent nearly half of American people, to
effectively make our case on this bill, and I think it is regrettable.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Let me simply say the gentleman says we have ``shut down the
appropriations process.'' That is absolute nonsense. We are making in
order 12 amendments, all of them Republican amendments. Three of the
six self-executing amendments are amendments that are sponsored in all
or in part by Republicans.
If anyone shut down the process, it was the minority party which
filibustered for 4 hours the last time this bill was on the floor and
didn't allow us to complete consideration of a single item in the bill.
Not one. In addition to which when we tried to pursue a unanimous
consent agreement before that bill hit the floor, we were denied that
opportunity by the minority party.
We had an understanding with the minority party that these bills
would be finished in roughly equivalent time to that which was taken
last year. The minority party was so angry about a bill that was going
to extend health care to 5 million additional kids they walked away
from that agreement, and that's why we are here today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 8 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I might just add to
the count of amendments, lest it be forgotten on Tuesday night, that I
accepted both the Gingrey and the McHenry amendments.
{time} 1445
So that is 14 Republican amendments that have been allowed for debate
and discussion.
I'm saddened by the path that we've taken to find our way here today,
but I must also say that, yes, I'm glad. I'm glad that we've arrived
here today because this Agriculture appropriations bill is a good bill,
it's a fair bill, and it has the potential to do so much for people and
for our communities who are in such need. And, yes, in fact, over the
last several months it has been a product of hard work, of honest
partnership, of an ongoing collaboration over a number of weeks from my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
I'm sorry that I don't see the ranking member of this subcommittee,
Mr. Kingston, on the floor. Mr. Kingston can attest to the kind of work
we have done together to produce and to craft a very solid piece of
legislation that, in fact, will make a difference in people's lives.
And we should not forget how much that we have put into this bill and
why. At the subcommittee level, the full committee level, even, as I
said, this past Tuesday, this bill has been a bipartisan process,
giving every single member of the subcommittee and of the full
committee the opportunity to engage, to propose amendments, to ask for
a vote if they wanted to. It has been a totally open process.
As a matter of fact, in the full committee there was not even one
vote called because there was such a sense of agreement on every single
amendment and the process that we went through in that committee. For
that, I stand here very proud as the Chair of this subcommittee, and
the first time that I have served as the Chair of this committee, we
produced a bill that has such support. I defy any of the other 11
subcommittees to have that same kind of bipartisanship that we had.
This bill is too important. There's critical responsibilities. And
maybe people don't view this bill as that important, but speak to rural
America, speak to people who care about what's happening in nutrition,
speak to people who care about conservation in this country. That is
what is in this bill, renewable sources of energy. To let it be
filibustered, to play political games, to let that take precedent over
this bill is what's happened.
The minority shut down this process. The minority's tactics, 4 hours,
4 hours, and I appreciate the minority leader's disappointment with
SCHIP, but on Tuesday night SCHIP was not the legislation that we were
discussing. Four hours. Those tactics, tied to other legislation, have
stood in the way of this process, even as the American people, in fact,
do insist that we get to work fulfilling our obligations to consumers
who want safe drugs and food.
It's good to see the gentleman from Georgia on the floor because Jack
Kingston and I have worked very well together, as I said, to produce a
good bill, one of which I stand here proudly to support and to carry on
with today.
Our priorities have been to have safe drugs and food, farmers who
rely on fair and functioning markets, children who need healthy food to
meet their potential, and rural communities who need opportunities to
thrive. And our priority has been to move with swift purpose, clear
direction on several key goals: strengthening rural America, protecting
the public health, improving nutrition for more Americans, transforming
our energy future, supporting conservation, investing in research and
enhancing oversight.
The bill provides discretionary resources of $18.8 billion. It is $1
billion above 2007, $987.4 million above the budget request, and to be
sure and to make it very clear, 95 percent of the increase over the
budget request, $940 million, is used to restore funding that was
eliminated or cut in the President's budget, to acknowledge that we
have, in fact, the obligation to meet the needs of hundreds of our
communities and millions of Americans.
It is about strengthening rural America. And what we do in terms of
facilitating growth, softening the impact of population loss, this bill
includes $728.8 million to support community facilities, water and
waste disposal systems, and business grants to protect our public
health. We provide $1.7 billion for the FDA, $62 million over the
budget request, the first step in a fundamental food safety
transformation at FDA.
We include $39.8 billion for food stamps, a program to meet increased
participation and to ensure rising food prices. We fund the Women,
Infants and Children program above the President's request. We step up
to priorities like investing in research, which many of you have
requested in earmarks in this bill, and conservation; and when it comes
to transforming energy, this budget includes bioenergy, renewable
energy research, $1.2 billion, including loans and grants in rural
areas of this country.
I'm proud of the bill. I'm proud of its priorities and the goals that
we set out to accomplish. We have obligations here, and that is to
discuss and to recognize what our roles are and what we do here in
order to meet the needs of the American public, not to interrupt for 4
hours for political gain or for whatever is annoying you that day, to
disrupt the process, shut it down. And we're going to move forward,
we're going to discuss this bill, we're going to pass the bill and
achieve the goals. You choose delay. We choose to proceed to go forward
in a responsible way.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with the utmost respect for my good friend
from New Haven, the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, I will say
that we could at this moment be debating this bill if we continued with
this open amendment process.
The SCHIP measure is over and done. My friends on the other side of
the aisle have won this debate. We are prepared to move ahead with an
open amendment process that will allow for a free-flowing debate.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. We have no guarantees with regard to the process.
Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, let me just tell you the
guarantee of the process. I was very happy to yield to my friend, and I
will be happy to yield to her again, but I will say, Mr. Speaker, the
fact of the matter is we have not had any dilatory tactics put into
place since passage of the SCHIP bill. All the time we spend on this
rule could have been spent discussing exactly what the gentlewoman has
been speaking about.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from
Morristown, New Jersey, a hardworking member on the Committee on
Appropriations, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
[[Page H9585]]
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully change the subject.
Mr. Speaker, all Members should be aware that there's language in
this bill that greatly expands existing U.S. policy on importing drugs
from other countries by allowing the wholesale importation of medicines
not just for personal use but now for commercial use. Implementation of
this new language would legalize the practice of reimportation of even
more undocumented prescription drugs of unknown origin into the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, existing Federal policies allow for importation of
prescription drugs for personal use, but this new provision opens the
floodgates to the unknown. This is a risk we should not take, not for
prescription drugs nor for any products that might do harm to our loved
ones.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California, 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. We will reserve our time at this point.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to our
colleague from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this rule as well. I don't think it's a good
precedent to set to move away from open rules on appropriations. I'm
one that's often accused of dilatory tactics on these bills, having so
many amendments on earmarks. These aren't dilatory at all.
I should note that on the bill that we had a couple of weeks ago, the
Energy and Water bill, I believe I offered seven or eight. With that,
one Member came to the floor before I offered and withdrew or asked for
an amendment which he received to strike his own earmark.
We're seeing the same here, three earmarks stricken from the bill in
the Rules Committee because an amendment was going to be offered to
strike them on the floor.
My understanding is with the Defense bill tomorrow that there will be
another amendment, self-executing rule to strike another earmark that
was going to be challenged on the floor.
So this is not dilatory at all to come to the floor and say, hey,
there are earmarks here that might be questionable. There are a lot of
earmarks that would go to private companies. These are, in essence,
sole source contracts.
I sympathize with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr.
Obey, who said many times that we simply don't have the staff to police
this many earmarks. I don't think you could have policed the 15,000 we
had a couple of years ago. If this Congress is successful in cutting
that down by half, we can't come close to policing that number either.
We have former Members in jail because of earmarks that we approved
in this body. We simply can't go on like this, and if we shut down this
process in a manner where we're only allowed to question a certain
number of earmarks, I wanted to question 10 on this bill. There are 410
in the bill. Ten is not an unreasonable number. I was only allowed
five.
Who knows on the bill that we do tomorrow if we have a closed rule.
If we aren't able to question these, where are we able to do it?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend
from Mariposa, California (Mr. Radanovich).
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
I rise in opposition to this new structured rule for the Ag
appropriations bill. I'm very disappointed that the Rules Committee
decided to shut down a free and open amendment process on this bill. My
constituents at home deserve the right to have their opinions for or
against any provision of this bill heard.
One of those provisions would be an amendment that was offered to
strike section 738 in H.R. 3161. This amendment was found out of order
by the Rules Committee. Section 738's intent is to stop horse
slaughter. However, the unintended consequences of this section will
have a detrimental effect on the entire equine industry.
Should this amendment become law, the breeding industry will be
negatively affected when foreign buyers are not able to transport their
American horses to another country. International and domestic racing
events will also be adversely impacted by this provision when racing
horses are not able to move across borders.
The economic detriment that would occur if this bill passes without
our amendment is almost as expansive as the actual language of section
738. Every industry, from television revenues gained from major horse
races to the small, family equine breeder, would feel the impact. In
fact, the U.S. horse industry supports 1.4 million jobs and has an
annual economic impact of $102 billion.
In addition, restricting USDA funding to inspect horses will spread
animal disease.
How the Rules Committee determined this amendment was out of order,
when it is clearly an important and germane amendment to the Ag
appropriations bill, is beyond my comprehension. In deeming this
amendment out of order, they have closed out an entire industry from
being able to have their views expressed through their representatives
on legislation that would have huge economic impacts.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the rule to the Ag
appropriations bill.
{time} 1500
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I support one of the self-executing
amendments in this rule, and it's my understanding that in the original
Ag appropriations bill, there was very broad language relating to horse
slaughter intending to stop horse slaughter in the U.S. that has passed
this House overwhelmingly on six different occasions.
And the gentlelady from Connecticut in responding to the concerns
that that amendment was overbroad has asked that a self-executing
amendment be included in this rule that is sponsored by three Democrats
and myself. I would say that she addressed our concerns, and I would
commend her for that.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
Mr. BOSWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding his time on this
issue we have just mentioned here.
I would first like to thank the Agriculture appropriations committee
for their hard work on this legislation. It's a thoughtful piece of
legislation, and I do plan to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I do need to express my concern and disappointment on an
amendment I was planning to offer along with Representatives Costa,
King, Salazar, and Radanovich that was not made in order.
Even though Representative Spratt's amendment, which replaced section
738 dealing with horse slaughter, was accepted by the Ag appropriations
committee and addresses some of the large issues, including
transportation and animal health inspection, it fails to address one
major issue. With 100,000 horses abandoned each year in the United
States, and animal adoption facilities overflowing, how, how are we
supposed to deal with these animals?
Having spent most of my life involved in animal agriculture, I
understand many of the issues firsthand. I have worked with a variety
of animals, dairy cows, feeder pigs, to my current cow-calf operation,
and we have always had horses on the farm, even today. In fact, I can
share with you that on the 4th of July, this past 4th in my hometown of
Lamoni, Iowa, I was awarded first place in the horse hitch category, a
beautiful horse and buggy.
Mr. Spratt's amendment that was accepted by the committee does not
address this issue of what to do with the additional 100,000 unwanted
horses with nowhere to go and no one to take care of them. The burden
will fall to the American taxpayer. Just housing and fitting one horse
costs around $1,900 per year. Mr. Spratt's amendment will cost $127
million in just the first year alone for these animals.
I want to be very clear: I love horses. I have owned horses my entire
life, and they have been some of the most loyal companions over the
years.
But I do have major concerns to the fact that we are making it
illegal for
[[Page H9586]]
horses to be slaughtered for human consumption, but not addressing what
we are going to do with these horses and how we are going to care for
them. We all should have a major concern and do something about it.
This problem is not simply going to go away. I thank the gentleman for
the time.
I would again like to reiterate my disappointment over not being
allowed to offer my amendment, but I do support the bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from
Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this modified closed rule
on an appropriations bill.
I had two very substantial amendments. The gentlelady from
Connecticut, the distinguished chairman, said that she was going to
accept my message amendment, my 1 percent cut, the $50,000 amendment
that I brought on Tuesday. Of course, it was a dilatory amendment to
try to get an opportunity to speak about the CHIP legislation that we
knew was coming under a closed rule.
But now I have two good amendments that were not made in order. One
amendment would say no money in this bill would be allowed to grant
food stamps or WIC money to anybody but United States citizens, not to
immigrants, not to illegal immigrants. In some cases, the current law
is very vague on that issue, a very substantive amendment that was not
made in order.
Finally, one other amendment, the Farm Service Agency in my district,
in Gordon County, Calhoun, Georgia. In fact, that Farm Service Agency
serves several counties and is doing a great job.
I am denied the opportunity to argue on behalf of the citizens of
Gordon County to keep that Farm Service Agency open. I am denied that
by this modified closed rule.
Regretfully, I have to stand and say that I am going to vote ``no''
on this rule, urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that of all people, the
gentleman who just spoke is way off base when he cries about being
denied an opportunity to deal with an amendment.
It was his amendment for $50,000 that this House debated for 4 hours
without coming to a resolution thereon because of the filibuster that
was being conducted on that side of the aisle. To suggest that somehow
that Member, who single-handedly held us up for 4 hours, to suggest
that he was denied, is a joke.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of
the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alexander, Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman from California in recognizing the
huge town of 160 people of Alexander, Iowa.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because it does cut off
and stifle debate on an appropriations bill. This really violates the
open rule tradition on appropriation bill debate in the House and runs
counter to the way we ought to be deciding to spend the taxpayers'
resources.
Having said that, I want to commend the gentlelady from Connecticut
for her great work, and the ranking member from Georgia really did an
outstanding job.
There is one particular component of the new rule I would like to
make a comment on. The reported bill contains a provision, section 746,
stating that ``no funds in this act may be used to authorize qualified
health claims for conventional foods.''
This provision means that none of the funds in the bill can be used
to give permission to display important health information,
irrespective of whether or not the information is scientifically valid.
The provision, as reported, would clearly stifle the FDA's ability to
put forth information on health benefits in foods.
This new rule self-executes a provision which narrows a reported
version of section 746 to stipulate that the funding prohibition
applies only to the FDA. The problem is that the change doesn't really
address the problem.
If this provision is intended to help FDA avoid wasted time and
resources on frivolous petitions, it misses the mark. Nothing in this
revised language removes or alters 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 as to the risks and
benefits of foods sold in the U.S.
This means that FDA still must carry out its mission of reviewing
petitions on claims, but just cannot issue approvals, even if they are
warranted. The problem is that if FDA does not do it, nobody will.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairwoman of
this subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have waited long enough for energy
reform and for nutrition reform, which is what this bill tackles. I
rise today to support working for American farmers, but also working
for those who get up every day without a meal.
To recognize that it is important to have food safety, it's important
to have an improved food and lunch program and food stamps, it's
important to focus on nutrition, and that is what we have done here.
I am glad to see that there is an aspect that deals with alternative
fuels; and having written a bill dealing with cellulosic ethanol, I
know that we have to move in a more effective direction. But I am also
glad that we recognize a particular viable aspect of the importance of
dealing with hunger in America.
I am concerned and hope that as we move forward, one of our vital
assets, the Hunger Center, will move toward authorization, as I
understand, and then increase funding so that it can be a tool to the
Department of Agriculture in dealing with the question of hunger in
America and around the world. This particular bill also provides more
help for USAID, and I believe that it is an important asset.
In the short time that I have I would like to yield to the gentlelady
from Connecticut to ask a question, and that is to comment on a point I
made about the Hunger Center, and the fact that it is moving towards
authorization that we will see in the years to come, an opportunity for
more work on its part and more resources.
Ms. DeLAURO. First of all, I want to thank the gentlelady for her
comments. I think we have worked very hard in this bill, in fact, to
increase the opportunity for nutrition. I would be happy to work with
the gentlelady from Texas. We have $2 million in the bill for the
Hunger Center and will look forward to working with you as we move
forward to try to increase those funds.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I ask my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3161, which strengthens
our rural communities, while making sure that the American people have
adequate, safe and nutritious food to eat. Let me commend the
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, Ms. DeLauro, for her exceptional
leadership in crafting such extraordinary legislation to combat hunger,
obesity and malnutrition in our nation and around the world. That is
why I strongly support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 allows us to reinvest in the often forgotten
but most vitally important rural areas of America. H.R. 3161 is
designed to sustain the vitality of rural America, as well as
protecting public health and food safety, improving nutrition and
healthy eating, and promoting renewable energy and conservation in
America.
Mr. Speaker, more than 3 million households in the rural America
continue to have inadequate or no water or sewer service at all. H.R.
3161 is the solution to this disparity in that it provides $500 million
for rural water and waste disposal grants, a 14 percent increase over
2007, and $1 billion for water and waste direct loans for the fiscal
year.
Mr. Speaker, energy independence and protecting our environment are
universal concerns to us all. The Energy Information Administration
estimates that the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil
it consumes.
[[Page H9587]]
A bill that I have proposed, the 21st Century Energy Independence Act
acknowledges this issue and aims to replace oil imports with domestic
alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol that can help
reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes to our annual trade
deficit, and end our addiction to foreign oil.
My bill alleviates our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels by
utilizing loan guarantees to promote the development of traditional and
cellulosic ethanol technology. In addition to ensuring access to more
abundant sources of energy, replacing petroleum use with ethanol will
help reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which are otherwise expected to
increase by 80 percent by 2025. Cellulosic ethanol can also reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 87 percent. Thus, transitioning from
foreign oil to ethanol will protect our environment from dangerous
carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 supports an innovative solution to our
national energy crisis as well. H.R. 3161 ensures that America achieves
energy independence and improves our environment by establishing a loan
guarantee program which supports projects for the harvesting, storing,
and delivery of agriculture residues for use in cellulosic or
traditional ethanol production plants. H.R. 3161 supports energy and
conservation, nearly doubles funding for renewable energy loans and
grants to businesses to grow our economy, create new jobs, lower energy
prices, and reduce global warming. The bill provides resources for
research, aid to farmers and ranchers, and loans to businesses,
restores many vital programs such as the Grazing Lands Conservation
Initiative, Resource Conservation and Development, and the watershed
programs.
Mr. Speaker, recent food scares--about peanut butter and lettuce--
have made Americans nervous about where their food originates. H.R.
3161 tackles these concerns and addresses the importance of food
safety. This bill fully funds the Food Safety and Inspection Service at
USDA, shifts funds to fill vacancies in federal meat inspector
positions, invests in research, and funds a transformation of FDA food
safety regulations. It also prohibits imported poultry products from
China, and sets a timeline for USDA to implement critical country of
origin labeling for our meat supply after six years of Republican
delays.
In addition, H.R. 3161 provides a special supplemental nutritional
program for women, infants, and children other known as (WIC). This
provision is so essential because it affords many women, especially
women of color in lower income brackets, the opportunity to care for
themselves and their newborns after birth. Without programs such as
WIC, many mothers would not be able to maintain a healthy lifestyle
during pregnancies and after childbirth. Because of WIC, mothers can
afford their nutritional foods they need to sustain their pregnancies
and avoid miscarriages, stillbirths and defects caused by
malnourishment during pregnancy. H.R. 3161 invests $233.4 million (4
percent) more than the President to feed more than 8 million pregnant
women, mothers and children next year.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in the importance of multilateral engagement,
and in the immense value of working with other concerned parties.
Hunger and malnutrition are truly global problems, and, while I
strongly urge the United States to be a leader in combating both, it is
not the only world actor. International organizations, like the United
Nations, are actively combating global hunger through a number of
different organs including the World Food Programme, the Food and
Agriculture Organization, and the World Health Organization.
Additionally, regional organizations, such as the African Union (AU)
and the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), play a
crucial role in efforts to eradicate hunger.
I have an amendment that requires coordination and integration
between different foreign assistance programs, and it states that
assistance shall also be coordinated and integrated in the recipient
country with other donors, including international and regional
organizations and other donor countries.
Nonetheless, hunger is not a problem facing not only the
international community faces, but it is also a problem in our own
country. Many women, children, and the elderly should not wake and go
to bed hungry in our great nation, but tragically this happens all too
often in the cities and villages and small towns of our great country.
Too many Americans continue to suffer from food shortages, hunger, and
insecurity. According to 2005 figures, 35.1 million people live in
households that are ``food insecure,'' or they do not know where their
next meal will come from.
The commodity supplemental food program incorporated into H.R. 3161
provides $500,000 monthly in the year 2007 to combat hunger and
increases funding in this area to allow people in five additional
states to participate in the program and expand those getting food in
states already in the program. In addition, under the Food Stamp
Benefit provision, H.R. 3161 protects the most vulnerable and helpless;
families of soldiers in combat. Like the recently passed Farm bill, the
measure ensures that the families of soldiers in combat are not
penalized under the Food Stamp program. It also rejects the
Administration's proposal to restrict eligibility for food stamps by
excluding needy families who are receiving certain other services.
Mr. Speaker, let us remember that 1 in 3 American adults is
overweight or obese and more than 9 million children are struggling
with obesity. H.R. 3161 aims to improve the eating habits of Americans,
particularly our children, through programs that teach children about
healthy eating. H.R. 3161 increases funding for nutrition programs,
including the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, which
broadens Fresh Fruit and Vegetable and Simplified Summer Food programs
to all states to provide nutritious foods to children in low-income
families, and specialty crop grants to encourage more fruit and
vegetable consumption.
Obesity is associated with 35 major diseases including chronic and
life-threatening conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
It is important to keep our Nation healthy by providing access to high
consumption of vegetables and fruits to the future of our great
country, our children. By supporting H.R. 3161 we assure a healthy
consumption of nutritional foods for children whose only crime is that
their families are poor.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 is essential because it addresses one of the
most staggering causes of death in children: malnutrition. Malnutrition
remains a significant problem worldwide, particularly among children.
According to the United Nations World Food Programme, severe acute
malnutrition affects an estimated 20 million children under the age of
five worldwide and is responsible in whole or in part for more than
half of all deaths of children. Malnutrition kills approximately one
million children each year, or an average of one every thirty seconds.
These statistics are absolutely frightening and simply intolerable.
They are also avoidable. The World Food Programme estimates that, when
implemented on a large scale and combined with hospital treatment for
children who suffer complications, a community-based approach to
combating malnutrition could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of
children each year.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 recognizes the importance of helping our
neighbors in combating the hunger. H.R. 3161 provides funding for the
Foreign Agricultural Service in the amount of $159,136,000 and
transfers of $4,985,000, for a total salaries and expenses level of
$164,121,000, an increase of $2,817,000 above the amount available for
fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $9,073,000 below the budget request.
In addition, H.R. 3161 permits the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) to use up to 25 percent of the funds
appropriated for local or regional purchase of food to assist people
threatened by a food security crisis.
Mr. Speaker, if it were not for grants such as the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, many
foreigners would have no other choice than to leave their native
country in pursuit of a better life. H.R. 3161 reminds us that it is
important for the United States to foster a relationship with other
parts of the world, so that citizens of developing countries can also
have basic rights such as sufficient amount of food. The McGovern-Dole
International Food program is funded in this bill in the amount of
$100,000,000, an increase of $1,000,000 above the amount available for
fiscal year 2007, and the same as the budget request.
The George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program fights child hunger and poverty by supporting
school feeding operations, which provide nutritious meals to children
in schools. This simple formula has been proven to be a success.
Because of such programs, students are better able to concentrate and
learn more quickly on a full stomach. Enrollment and attendance rates
have skyrocketed as a result of school feeding programs, particularly
among girls who are too often denied an education.
Mr. Speaker, there are 110 million school-aged children suffering
from hunger every day, and they are counting on America's leadership
and generosity to provide them with an opportunity to break the cycle
of poverty. This bill provides that leadership and generosity, and it
is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for
its passage by an overwhelming margin.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend
from Kiron, Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the ranking member from California for
yielding and for his leadership on the Rules Committee. That has been
an important model leadership for our conference.
[[Page H9588]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this modified closed rule for a
number of things, but the issues that I may be able to raise in this
amount of time is that as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
said, the amendments that are approved under this rule are Republican
amendments, but I would point out that those which are adopted under
the rule, the self-executing amendments, are not Republican amendments
for the most part.
I have in my hand an amendment that says ``offered by Mr. Mollohan of
West Virginia,'' the one that was the subject of Mr. Sessions' remarks
that strikes those three earmarks that were in there.
Now, they were stricken because, according to the chairman, they were
in controversy. Now, this controversy has not been something that has
been a large area of discussion here on this floor. But the gentleman
from West Virginia has said he is unaware of any investigations. He may
be the only one in this Congress that's unaware.
I would point out that the Speaker handed the gentleman from West
Virginia the gavel to the appropriations subcommittee that he chairs.
He held and still holds the purse strings of the agency that's been
reported as looking into this that has brought out this controversy.
{time} 1515
That is why we are here on this. These three earmarks that came from
West Virginia from Mr. Mollohan stricken by a self-enacting rule, now
is this also going to be the policy in the case on the Department of
Defense appropriations bill that comes up? Because there are at least
nine earmarks in that bill as well. So these are the consequences of a
closed rule. There is friction, there is controversy, there is 4\1/2\
hours of debate, which is greatly to the resentment of the gentlelady
from Connecticut.
But I would say we got through Justice approps through an open rule,
and we did so with legitimate debate, and we were here to perfect the
legislation, and we did so to the extent and we executed the will of
this body. This rule does not execute the will of this body. This rule
self-enacts. Vote down the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that the gentleman feels
he needs to personalize this debate; and I would only ask the
gentleman, how many ranking Republicans are right now under
investigation who continue to serve in their capacity?
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank Chairman Rosa DeLauro for an incredible bill that I would like to
get to so we can vote on it.
The debate on this rule I think just shows what is going on here,
which is a reason to stall, a reason to just eat up the time so that we
really don't get to the underlying issues. Because they know when we
pass this bill it is going to pass with a bipartisan vote.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. No, I will not yield; and I want to say why.
In law, you learn an old adage that says, in order to get equity, you
have got to show equity.
The other night we were on the floor with a bunch of amendments, and
the amendment was debated, and it was accepted by the chairwoman. And
then we went on and debated with motions to adjourn, motions to rise
for a number of hours.
The gentleman who offered the original amendment that was adopted
also had 11 other amendments. This is a $100 billion operation, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, $100 billion. His amendments were to
cut $50,000, another amendment for $60,000, another amendment for
$7,000, another amendment for $39,000. And it went on. The list went on
and on. He could have put all of those into one amendment. It still
wouldn't have even matched $1 million.
So the point is that these were all dilatory amendments to just try
to delay the time; and I think that equity was not shown, partnership
was not shown, bipartisanship was not shown. And that is why we have a
rule that is fair, allows these amendments, 12 more, to be debated, and
the self-executing rule did self-execute some Republican amendments as
well.
I urge the adoption of this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute
to my friend from Hobbs, New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this unduly restrictive rule. I had two
amendments that I was prepared to offer to this legislation, neither of
which will be considered here today. They were pretty simple, really.
My first amendment would have increased funding for the Wildlife
Services by $500,000 to support the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program in
New Mexico and Arizona. This program is teetering on the edge of
failure. My attempt to add a modest amount of additional funding to
manage dangerous problem wolves was rejected by the majority.
My second amendment was an attempt to bring protections to the
endangered wolves in the Northeast United States, where many in the
conservation community believe they are being killed by Wildlife
Services.
My amendments were filed in a timely fashion. The committee was
alerted to my intentions all along. Yet this is the result of the rule
that we have before us today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the rule be amended to
allow me to offer my two amendments which have been placed at the desk,
which were also filed with the Rules Committee, were provided to the
Appropriations Committee and are critically important to my
constituents in New Mexico.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous consent request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield
for that purpose?
Mr. McGOVERN. No, I do not, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not yielded for that
purpose.
The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am reserving at this time because I am
the last speaker on my side.
____________________