[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 126 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9618-H9639]
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 Committee resumed its sitting.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 9 minutes. 
The gentleman from Georgia has 8 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the subcommittee and its chair for 
a good bill, and I wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut regarding funding for Community Food Projects and 
organic transitions research.
  The 2007 farm bill that passed this House on Friday substantially 
increased the authorized funding for Community Food Projects, but it 
changed it from mandatory to discretionary. The CFP supports hundreds 
of innovative projects selected competitively, such as community 
kitchens, farmers markets, farm-to-school programs, in Connecticut 
among other States. I'm hoping that we can work toward finding 
discretionary funds for CFP.
  Similarly, while the 2007 farm bill authorized a substantial increase 
in funding for various organic programs, funding for the organic 
transitions research program remained flat for the fiscal year. The 
market for organic food has reached $15 billion and is growing. Yet 
farmers need help making the transition from traditional to organic 
methods of farming, and without that help we will increasingly be 
dependent on overseas sources for organic products.
  I ask the Chair to consider an increased level of funding for these 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008, and to commend the Committee 
and Subcommittee leadership for their efforts on the bill, but also to 
express my concern about the lack of funding for community food 
projects and the lack of an increase in funding for the organic 
transitions research program for Fiscal Year 2008.
  The 2007 Farm Bill that passed the House on Friday substantially 
increased the authorization for Community Food Projects (CFP) funding, 
from $5 million to $30 million annually. However, it also changed the 
funding from mandatory to discretionary, and funding for CFP was not 
included in the FY 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill that is before 
us today.
  Hundreds of civic groups and associations throughout the country, as 
well as low-income consumers and farmers who produce for local and 
regional markets, benefit from this program. The program facilitates 
and builds the capacity of non-profit, community-based organizations so 
they can establish projects that meet the food needs of low-income 
populations; identify and address weakness in urban food systems, such 
as insufficient retail food stores in densely populations neighborhoods 
and poor access to healthy and fresh foods for schools; and promote 
comprehensive responses to food, farm, and nutrition issues by 
combining the resources of multiple sectors of the food system. From 
its inception in 1996 through 2007, CFP received mandatory funding 
under the Food Stamp Program and it has funded more than 240 innovative 
projects such as certified community kitchens, community supported 
agricultural operations, farmer's markets, agri-business incubators, 
farm-to-school programs and other projects.
  I regret that the 2007 Farm Bill made CFP funding discretionary, if 
it remains so in the enacted bill, I hope that the Senate and House 
conferees will work to ensure that the prevailing level of funding for 
CFP will be provided in the enacted Fiscal Year 2008 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill.
  In addition, I wish to stress the urgency of increasing funding for 
organic transitions research in Fiscal Year 2008. While the 2007 Farm 
bill will substantially increase funding for various organic programs, 
funding for the organic transitions research program has again remained 
flat for Fiscal Year 2008. The market for organic food has reached $15 
billion and, according to the Organic Trade Association, growth in 
sales of organic food has been 15 percent to 21 percent each year since 
1998, compared with 2 percent to 4 percent for total food sales. 
Although there are now 10,000 organic farms in the United States, that 
is not enough to keep pace with demand. As a result, organic food 
suppliers must increasingly look for organic produce and other 
agricultural products from overseas locations.
  The Organic Transitions Program is a highly competitive grants 
program established as part of the Department of Agriculture's 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. This 
national program has been extremely important to the organic farming 
community in funding research to assist farmers in overcoming the 
barriers to transitioning their farm operations into organic 
production. Through grants awarded under the program, for example, a 
university in the West has been funded to research ecological soil 
community management for enhanced nutrient cycling; a Northeastern 
university has been funded to research reducing off-farm grain inputs 
on northeast organic dairy farms; and another--a university in a Great 
Plains state--to fund research into the transition to sustainability.
  The demand for research on a wide variety of topics related to 
organic agriculture has been increasing in proportion to the surging 
growth in the demand for organic agricultural products, and the 
benefits of this research accrue not simply to organic and other 
farmers, but to the entire health-conscious population. Notwithstanding 
this surge in demand, funding for organic research to facilitate the 
transition into organic farming methods has been holding steady at just 
under $2 million for the last few fiscal years, which represents only 
one-hundredth of one percent of the size of the industry the research 
is intended to support.
  The organic transitions program has been extremely important to the 
organic farming community in funding research to assist farmers in 
overcoming the barriers to transitioning

[[Page H9619]]

their farm operations into organic production. My amendment to increase 
funding for this program to $5 million passed in the House last year, 
and I hope to see this level of funding included in the enacted 
Agriculture Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008.
  Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman would yield, these are both very, very 
worthy efforts, and I look forward to working with the gentleman on 
these programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of the time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hare).
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage our respected chairwoman of 
the House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee in a colloquy to 
raise an issue of importance to a group of struggling workers in the 
almond industry. At issue is whether a company or cooperative should 
continue to be funded through the Market Access Program in light of 
being found guilty of labor violations here at home.
  During a recent organizing drive, Blue Diamond Growers, a past 
recipient of these MAP funds, was found guilty by the National Labor 
Relations Board of more than 20 labor law violations, including 
firings. These were serious offenses.
  Would the gentlewoman agree with me that the Secretary of Agriculture 
has the authority to deny serious labor lawbreakers taxpayer funds 
which are distributed from the Market Access Program?
  Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman would yield, I, too, am concerned about 
treatment of workers at Blue Diamond Growers. I'm aware that the 
Secretary of Agriculture has the discretion to deny funding to a coop 
if it is in the best interest of the program. I further note that USDA 
regulations require that MAP participants adhere to the laws and 
customs abroad when they hire foreign workers to market their product. 
We'll work with you on this critical issue of real importance to our 
workers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I rise to oppose this particular bill.
  But before I do, I do want to say I think there are a number of good 
things, a number of good provisions in the bill. As one who has come to 
the floor on numerous occasions to attempt to champion fiscal 
responsibility and earmark reform, I do take note that under the 
chairwoman's leadership, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, that the 
number of earmarks are actually reduced in this bill. I consider that 
progress, and she should be commended for that.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I also note that the bill increases 
spending over last year by 5.9 percent, 5.9 percent. Now the people who 
are ultimately going to be called to pay for this bill, my guess is 
their salaries didn't go up 5.9 percent. And I know throughout this 
debate we always point out all the good things that are in the bill, 
and occasionally we have to point out this very inconvenient question, 
and that is, who's going to pay for it all? Who's going to pay for it 
all?
  Right now, the Federal Government is still spending roughly $23,000 
per family. It's one of the largest levels in our Nation's history and 
the largest since World War II. Although it's down, the deficit is 
still very high, and Member after Member comes to the floor to decry 
raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, but we know if we're going to 
grow the Federal budget, including this bill, way beyond the growth of 
the family budget, that you continue to raid the Social Security Trust 
Fund.
  Members come to this floor to decry borrowing money from China to pay 
for the national debt, but, again, if we increase this spending 5.9 
percent, it's exactly what this body is going to do.
  Now, we've already had a robust debate over the farm bill last week, 
and I know that many provisions in this bill will help rural America, 
and as one who represents six rural east Texas counties, I'm glad for 
that. As somebody who comes from three generations of people who made 
their living from agriculture, I appreciate the challenges in 
agriculture.
  But I might observe that if we were really, really serious about 
trying to help all the different people involved in agriculture, maybe 
what we'd do is end the death tax, something our friends from the other 
side of the aisle have fought every step of the way. Somebody works 
their entire life to put together a ranch or a farm, Uncle Sam can come 
in and take 55 percent. Maybe we would stand up for private property 
rights and let these people dispose of their livestock as they wish. 
Maybe we would actually work to open up more markets for all of our 
food and fiber. But, no, instead, we're going to increase spending 5.9 
percent.
  That's the wrong approach, Mr. Chairman. We should defeat this bill.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Congresswoman Kaptur for a 
unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this excellent bill to 
support food, fiber, fuel and forest production across this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chairwoman Ms. DeLauro, a 
longstanding colleague, for the excellent bill she has assembled. As 
the former ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations 
subcommittee, it has been a pleasure to see my colleague bring together 
our subcommittee through a form of collegiality unrivaled in this day 
of partisanship. This year's agriculture appropriations bill has been 
many years in coming, investing in the critical resources necessary to 
move agriculture and much of rural America fully into the 21st Century.
  Ms. DeLauro has been a true leader and has produced a bill that 
should make all members of the Subcommittee proud. This bill invests in 
energy independence, secures our Nation's food supply, provides 
nutritional assistance for those living on the edge and link production 
from local small farmers with our urban consumers. The bill helps to 
grow America's economy through investing in rural America's potential 
for food, fiber, fuel and forest production.
  Along with breakthrough investments in energy that will result from 
the recent farm bill, this measure moves America forward with a plan to 
use agriculture to solve our energy crisis. This legislation provides 
$350 million for biomass and renewable energy projects and $500 million 
to electrify America with wind power. This bill also provides $46 
million for an innovative USDA grant program to help America transition 
to renewable energy sources, a program that has a long record of 
investing in the technologies of tomorrow. Agriculture holds the key if 
we are going to wean our Country from our dangerous dependence on 
foreign oil. This bill provides important incentive to transition us 
into the economy of tomorrow.
  The Department of Agriculture dedicates almost \2/3\ of its budget to 
nutrition, yet, there have been scarce few attempts to link local 
producers with urban consumers. This bill confronts those challenges 
and directs the Department of Agriculture to connect local farmers with 
procurement from USDA major nutrition programs. In addition, this bill 
also provides $20 million for the senior farmers market nutrition 
program, an approach so wildly successful with the elderly and with 
farmers that it regularly has more requests than funds available. For 
our Nation's farmers markets, this bill also provides $1,000,000 for 
the Farmers' Market Promotion Program to establish, expand, and promote 
farmers' markets to connect local production to the local marketplace.
  I am also pleased to rise in support of the $150 million for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program that this legislation provides. 
This bill provides enough money to expand CSFP in 5 new states, 
providing a food supplement for those who cannot make ends meet.
  These agriculture nutrition programs bridge the gap between urban and 
rural, linking consumers with local producers--helping to provide fresh 
produce, vegetables and commodities to those with little access to 
nutritious foods.
  On food safety, this bill confronts critical challenges to the 
integrity of our food system. This bill blocks implementation of a rule 
which

[[Page H9620]]

would allow poultry importation from China and provides funds to 
implement the long awaited process of labeling the country of origin 
for food in our marketplace. It has taken many years to bring this 
issue to the forefront. But now it appears that Congress is finally 
giving consumers the tools for making effective decisions on what they 
choose to eat.

  Before I close, I would like to advise the administration of language 
which clearly expresses the intent of Congress on the failed policy of 
Farm Service Agency closures. In both the Agriculture Appropriations 
bill and in the recently passed Farm Bill, the House of Representatives 
expressed its discontent with efforts to move forward with these 
closures. As there seems to be significant confusion on the intent of 
Congress on Farm Service Agency office closures, I respectfully refer 
the FSA Administration to two sections in recent legislation passed in 
the House of Representatives which clearly provide the intent of 
Congress on this issue.
  In H.R. 2419 Section 11306 and Page 56 of the House Appropriations 
Report from H.R. 3161 clearly express the intent of Congress. As FSA 
moves forward with office closures in Ohio and across the Country, I 
strongly urge the administration to recognize the clear intent of the 
House Appropriations Committee, the House Agriculture Committee and the 
full House of Representatives.
  In sum, this bill takes a major step forward for our Nation in 
opening new markets for farmers, makes major strides in conservation of 
our natural resources, attends to the food needs of all of America's 
needy families and children, moves rural America into renewable energy 
production, addresses challenges posed by serious environmental 
invasive species, and expands our food safety efforts. America must 
dedicate itself to food self sufficiency here at home and displace the 
rising levels of food imports. This bill invests in our Nation and our 
producers and consumers. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Does the gentleman from Georgia have any additional 
speakers?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I do, but they're not here quite yet.
  Ms. DeLAURO. We have no other speakers.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself 1 minute, and maybe 
somebody will percolate and maybe they won't.
  I wanted to make a comment. Mr. Hensarling had noticed that the 
earmarks were down. I think this is a good thing. I think that our job 
is going to have to be to make sure the earmarks stay down as this 
thing goes through the process, but I also think we need to be 
concerned about what can happen that will add costs to this bill.
  It's interesting we just had a bill that had about 50 people vote 
against it. It was a popular bill that created a number of new 
programs, and I was thinking that so often on appropriation bill 
there's always a standard 100 to 150 people who vote ``no,'' and yet 
here was an authorizing bill, suddenly it's okay to spend money on an 
authorizing bill because it doesn't count. But on an appropriation 
bill, those same people who voted ``yes'' an hour ago will be voting 
``no'' on the appropriation bill, except for Mr. Hensarling, who's 
pretty consistent on everything.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers on our side 
except for myself in terms of closing. So, if the gentleman from 
Georgia would close, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I think I have one more in the wing. So 
let me again enlighten you with some of my wisdom, if I may yield 
myself 1 minute.
  One of the amendments that we have been working on in this bill is 
the insistence that those who sell or contract to the Federal 
Government use Social Security verification. There's a program called 
the Basic Pilot Program, and we have that amendment in the bill.
  I think it's important people realize that the idea is that if you're 
doing business with the Federal Government you should be in compliance 
with the law of the land, which is to have legal employees; and what 
this does is requires those vendors and sales corporations and 
contractors and subcontractors to show that they are in compliance by 
having Social Security verification.
  I'm excited about this amendment. I think it's very important. 
President Clinton actually did the same thing February 13, 1996, by 
executive order; and I am hoping that if there's some problems with 
this amendment that as this bill moves through the process we may need 
to tinker with it a little bit but that we can keep the gist of it.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers around, and I yield back my 
time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to say I think we 
need to be very excited about this bill. We set out to accomplish 
several goals, including strengthening rural America, having the 
opportunity to protect our public health, improving nutrition for more 
Americans, and we tried to be concerned particularly about rural areas. 
But we're looking at 40 percent of the children in rural areas who are 
dependent on food stamps. We look to transforming our energy future to 
$1.2 billion in loans and grants, particularly in rural areas, 
supporting conservation, investing in research, which keeps our 
agriculture on the cutting edge and, finally, enhancing oversight.
  Most importantly, what I believe about this bill is it brings our 
Nation back to its most fundamental principles and that is the strength 
of our communities. We have an obligation to keep these things and to 
get them right, and I'm assuming we will take that responsibility 
today.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this opportunity 
to talk about the importance of purchasing domestically grown and 
processed foods for school meals.
  We all heard the recent reports about toxic products coming from 
China--everything from food to toothpaste. The last thing we want is to 
have any of that making its way into our children's school lunches.
  Already, Congress has approved legislation encouraging schools to 
``Buy American.'' This not only supports our farm communities, but also 
puts locally-grown products on our students' lunch trays.
  It serves our farmers and producers as much as it serves 
schoolchildren throughout this country.
  I am concerned, however, that the Department of Agriculture has 
failed to follow directives given to them by Congress.
  This serious problem surfaced again recently. Earlier this year, at a 
convention hosted by the School Nutrition Association, one prominent 
school food display marketed products that were not only produced 
overseas but also processed overseas.
  Nancy Montanez Johner, the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 
Consumer Services, and several other Government officials were there.
  I hope now that they have seen this problem for themselves, the 
Department will move quickly to take immediate action to correct it, 
and stop purchasing foreign agricultural products for use in the School 
Lunch Program.
  The Department should be promoting products from our U.S. farmers and 
producers. The Buy American provision should not be some secret 
Government provision buried low in the small type.
  Chairwoman Delauro assured me she would work with me on this 
important issue.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on 
H.R. 3161, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, and 
discuss the great need for cattle research in this bill.
  The Southeast, particularly the gulf coast, is home to almost 40 
percent of the Nation's beef cow herd.
  Cattle production in this region has unique problems that come from 
heat, humidity, disease, and the environment.
  The USDA is currently conducting research on major issues affecting 
beef cattle at the Subtropical Agricultural Research Station in 
Florida.
  However, to keep our cattle supply abundant and healthy, there is a 
growing need to increase the scope of the research and find creative 
solutions to the unique subtropical environment stressors that are 
affecting herd production.
  I recognize that there are many important programs like this one 
throughout the Nation, but I urge the Appropriations Committee to work 
with me to ensure adequate funding for this vital program in the 
future.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration is incredibly important--FDA oversees products that make 
up one quarter of all consumer spending in the U.S. and it is vital to 
protecting the public health.
  But for all that we ask of this agency, I am concerned that we do not 
give FDA what it needs to do its job. For years, FDA has been 
underfunded--its costs have risen dramatically while its appropriations 
have barely increased. In fact, the number of staff at FDA has actually 
dropped since 2003, despite rapidly expanding burdens.
  I know that the chairwoman is a staunch defender of food safety, and 
I share her concerns. I have my own doubts about whether

[[Page H9621]]

this administration is doing all that it can to protect our food 
supply. But I also know that FDA cannot keep our food safe if it 
doesn't have the people to make decisions or conduct inspections. 
Because FDA's food programs do not involve user fees, unlike the drug 
and device programs, food safety is one of the most neglected functions 
at the agency. Partly as a result of this shortage, FDA's ability to 
ensure a safe food supply is severely limited. The effect of this is 
simple: Less money for food safety means fewer staff working to protect 
the food supply; fewer inspections; a diminished ability to respond to 
outbreaks, and--most important--a limited ability to develop policies 
that can prevent future catastrophes.
  FDA is facing a shortfall of crisis proportions, and I believe that 
greater funding is imperative. We ask a great deal of FDA, and we need 
to support it with the funds necessary to do its job. I know that the 
chairwoman has taken the first step in this bill to reverse the trend 
of shortchanging FDA. But I think we can do more to begin restoring FDA 
to its proper role. That will require a multi-year commitment to 
greater funding.
  I recognize that Chairwoman DeLauro is concerned about existing 
problems at FDA and I share her concerns. My committee's investigations 
of FDA have identified significant problems at FDA, some of which have 
nothing to do with funding. For example, we've seen political 
interference in scientific decisionmaking and a failure to conduct 
vigorous enforcement of the law. Both of these interfere with FDA's 
ability to protect the public health, and they cannot be fixed with 
money alone. But these issues are matched with problems that are purely 
a matter of resources.
  I think we need to provide greater resources for FDA at the same time 
that we provide greater oversight.
  Currently, the Senate bill appropriates $1.75 billion to FDA, with 
$522 million for food safety. The House bill appropriates roughly $57 
million less than that overall, and $48 million less for foods. I think 
the Senate level of funding is a good start to restoring FDA to its 
proper level of funding. I urge the chairwoman to seek the highest 
level of funding that is feasible in conference.
  As I said, I think this will be a multi-year effort, and I would like 
to work with the chairwoman on restoring FDA in the years ahead with 
even greater funding.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 599, no further amendment shall be in 
order except the amendments printed in part B of House Report 110-290. 
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report; 
by a Member designated in the report; shall be considered read; shall 
be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not 
be subject to amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       Page 3, line 9, strike ``: Provided'' and all that follows 
     through ``budgets for contracting out''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike language 
included on page 3 of this legislation, which would have the same anti-
competitive effect as language already included in almost every other 
one of the Democrat majority's appropriations bills, by preventing 
funds from being spent to conduct public-private competitions.
  In this case, it would prevent funds from being used to allow the 
private sector to compete against the government for jobs by limiting 
the Agriculture Department's Chief Financial Officer's ability to spend 
money on this taxpayer-friendly activity until he provides a redundant 
report back to Congress on the Department's contracting policies.
  While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to public 
sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for 
Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on 
their core missions when Congress takes the opportunity to use 
competition and takes that ability away from them.

                              {time}  1900

  In 2006, Federal agencies competed only 1.7 percent of their 
commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of 
the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for 
services is expected to generate savings of over $1.3 billion over the 
next 10 years by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies.
  Competitions, completed since 2003, are expected to produce almost $7 
billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means 
that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every $1 spent on 
the competition with an annualized savings of more than $1 billion.
  This provision is obviously needed to stall public, private 
competitions for an entire fiscal year, rather than allowing a proven 
process to work, as it was intended, and it would harm taxpayers by 
denying the Department of Agriculture the ability to focus its scarce 
resources and expertise on core missions.
  This concerted effort to prevent competition sourcing from taking 
place at the Department of Agriculture comes just a week after the 
House passed an agriculture bill that goes way beyond the Federal scope 
and strips States of their ability to use competitive sourcing to 
improve their own food stamp programs, demonstrating that the Democrat 
leadership is hearing clearly from labor bosses that the Agriculture 
appropriations bill represents yet another good opportunity to increase 
their power at the expense of taxpayers and good government.
  In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, 
Congress should be looking to use all the tools it can to find taxpayer 
savings and reduce the cost of savings that are already being provided 
by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of support for this 
amendment from the Fair Competition Coalition.

                               The Fair Competition Coalition,

                                                   August 2, 2007.
     Hon. Pete Sessions,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Sessions: The Fair Competition 
     Coalition supports your efforts to remove from Title I the 
     anti-A-76 language from the Fiscal Year 2008 Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 3161).
       We are writing to express our strong opposition to the 
     language in Title I under the Chief Financial Officer 
     section, which would stop all funding of the Department's 
     FAIR Act Inventories and all A-76 competitive studies. On 
     behalf of the thousands of companies and hundreds of 
     thousands of employees represented by the associations listed 
     below, we urge adoption of this amendment.
       The Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act was 
     enacted during the Clinton Administration, and received 
     strong bi-partisan support in the Congress as well as union 
     and industry support. The law simply requires each Federal 
     agency to publish an inventory of all its commercial 
     activities.
       This prohibition will hinder the agency's ability to 
     identify and access the best and most efficient sources for 
     the performance of its commercial activities. All relevant 
     studies have shown that the competition process itself, 
     regardless of outcome, results in savings exceeding 20%. The 
     prohibition on identifying and studying these positions is 
     thus highly inappropriate and unfortunate for the taxpayer, 
     as well as a restriction on the ability of any President to 
     manage the Federal government.
       FCC supports adoption of your amendment to remove this 
     harmful language from HR. 3161.
           Sincerely,
         Aerospace Industries Association, American Congress on 
           Surveying and Mapping, Airport Consultants Council, 
           American Council of Independent Laboratories, American 
           Council of Engineering Companies, American Electronics 
           Association, American Institute of Architects, 
           Associated General Contractors of America, Business 
           Executives for National Security, Construction 
           Management Association of America, Contract Services 
           Association of America, Design Professionals Coalition, 
           Electronic Industries Alliance, Information Technology 
           Association of America, Management Association for 
           Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, National Association 
           of RV

[[Page H9622]]

           Parks and Campgrounds, National Defense Industrial 
           Association, National Federation of Independent 
           Business, Professional Services Council, Small Business 
           Legislative Council, Textile Rental Services 
           Association of America, The National Auctioneers 
           Association, United States Chamber of Commerce.

  I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense taxpayer 
first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public 
union sector bosses by keeping cost savings competition alive to the 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the Sessions amendment, and I am 
astounded that the gentleman is taking the time of the House with this 
amendment.
  The only requirement in the language that the amendment seeks to 
strike is for the USDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide a 
report on contracting out policies and expenditures, to the 
appropriations and the Oversight and Government Reform committees.
  This is a bipartisan provision, included when the gentleman's party 
was in the majority and a long-standing provision that was first part 
of the Agriculture bill for fiscal year 2004.
  If the gentleman's aim is to allow USDA to continue contracting out, 
this amendment is not the way to accomplish that. The language that we 
have included in the bill does not prevent USDA from carrying out the 
outsourcing of Federal work. What it simply aims to do is to establish 
a much-needed oversight on the related costs to contracting out.
  Regardless of how one feels about the role of the Federal workforce 
and the outsourcing of Federal jobs to private contractors, why would 
we object to transparency in this area? We are talking about a report.
  Now, after the comment about the report being burdensome, this is the 
report, it is hardly burdensome, four paragraphs and a chart. It really 
defies the imagination.
  The fact is that we need to exercise our responsibility. We need to 
increase oversight in this area. We all know that the administration's 
guidelines for public-private competitions, OMB circular 876, has long 
favored contractors and stacked the deck against Federal employees.
  The Bush White House has pushed privatization so much that the Los 
Angeles Times reported earlier this month that there are more private 
contractors in Iraq than U.S. troops. More than 180,000 civilians, 
including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis, are working in Iraq under 
U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense Department figures 
obtained by the newspaper.
  I believe we should know the costs associated with contracting-out 
policies. That is all, again, that is all the language in the report is 
about, and I cannot understand why the gentleman objects to a report.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask what time remains.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 90 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that was not made in order that 
would have allowed us to have a conversation about States' rights.
  There is a provision in the bill that severely rejects States' 
abilities to run their food stamp programs in ways they see fit in ways 
that are economical, provide benefits to beneficiaries in a respectful 
way; and it was not made in order.
  I think States' rights and a conversation about that is a worthy 
topic this evening to have this discussion. It's unfortunate that a 
select few on the Rules Committee, on the majority, are afraid of that 
conversation.
  I don't know if I would have won it or lost it. I think every time we 
trample on a State's rights to do things, the 10th amendment to the 
Constitution, that that's worthy of a conversation for this floor.
  I am flabbergasted that the majority on the Rules Committee were 
afraid of having that conversation tonight. So let me add my voice to 
the long line of Members on this side who whined about being cut out of 
this process.
  This is a legitimate issue, the right of a State to run its business 
the way that it sees fit, and if it does things correctly, and we 
develop new ways to do things, allowing other States to adopt those 
same models. This bill prohibits that from happening. This tramples on 
States' rights. It's an issue we should have had a full debate on, at 
least 5 minutes on each side, but we are not going to because of some 
fear on the other side.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 2 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, again, let me just notify the gentleman 
who just spoke, there is truly nothing in our bill that deals with the 
issue of privatization or with States and privatization. I think the 
gentleman is confused with the Agriculture appropriations bill and with 
the farm bill which occurred a week ago. That was addressed in the farm 
bill. There is nothing in our bill that deals with the issue of 
privatization.
  I think it's again worth noting that all we are speaking about here 
is a report. What I can't understand is why we would not want to know 
about the cost of contracting out and what is happening. That is what 
our responsibility is, to ask questions. We have oversight 
responsibility of these Federal agencies.
  As I pointed out before, you have 21,000 Americans, 43,000 foreign 
contractors, 118,000 Iraqis all employed in Iraq by U.S. tax dollars, 
according to the most recent government data. You have got the massive 
privatization of military jobs which have been taken up with 
construction, security, weapons systems, maintenance, and, in fact, we 
can't even keep track of that effort. We have a responsibility, whether 
it is Department of Agriculture, whether it is Department of Defense, 
whatever Department it is.
  If we want to hold the jobs that we have, we ought to be asking 
questions about how taxpayers' dollars are being spent by these 
agencies. And it's fiscally responsible, and it is what we are charged 
with doing. You may choose not to know what they are doing because you 
concur that that's the thing to do, to replace Federal employees and 
their jobs. You can hold that view, but let's get the information. 
Let's get a mere report to do it.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in part B of 
House Report 110-290.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       Page 33, line 16, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $6,287,000)''.
       Page 33, line 17, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $6,287,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that may be

[[Page H9623]]

modest in the dollars involved, but I believe it is very, very 
important in the principle that underlies it.
  The amendment would simply level fund the Community Facilities Grant 
Program, level funding. It would spend the same amount of money next 
year that we have spent last year.
  Instead, what we see in this appropriations bill is that the amount 
is going to be increased 37 percent, 37 percent. Now, again, the people 
who are going to be expected to pay for this, I seriously doubt that 
they saw their paychecks increase 37 percent.
  Now, I have no doubt that good things can be done with this money. 
Those who want to spend more of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars 
always have some very good rationale for doing it.
  But the question is, any time you create a Federal investment, by 
definition you are going to be creating a family divestment, because 
somebody has to pay for this. In this particular case, when it is the 
Heritage Foundation, as is noted, by at least one count we have 10,000 
Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies. I defy any human 
being to tell me what they do. The Office of Management and Budget has 
noted in their budget report: ``This program is redundant with other 
Federal programs at the Department of Commerce and Housing and Urban 
Development.''
  Now, my reading of this bill, and I would certainly let the chairman 
correct me if I am wrong, I don't think one single program is 
terminated in this particular bill. Everybody is going to get more 
money except the people who have to pay for it, and that is the poor 
beleaguered taxpayer.
  I have a lot of respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, and we 
serve on the House Budget Committee together. I know she hears the same 
testimony that I hear. That testimony is this Nation has a huge 
spending problem.
  Already with the government that we have, we are on track to double 
taxes on the next generation or, for all intents and purposes, there 
will be no Federal Government in the next generation, save Medicare, 
Medicaid and Social Security.
  I know it's a problem that doesn't manifest itself tomorrow, but how 
long is this Congress going to kick the can down the road? I mean, we 
have heard the testimony. Our Comptroller General has said that the 
rising cost of government is ``a fiscal cancer'' that threatens 
``catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt 
America.''
  Yet here we have a bill increasing one program 37 percent and 
terminating none, none. I mean, where does it all stop?
  Now, I know the subject matter is important. I have the honor and 
privilege of representing a fair amount of rural Texas in the Fifth 
Congressional District, but those are the same people who are being 
asked to pay for this. They are the ones who are going to be subjected 
to the single largest tax increase in American history of roughly 
$3,000 per family.
  So here we have out of 10,000 Federal programs one that OMB has said 
is redundant, does the same thing that other programs do. 
Unfortunately, the committee's response is to increase it 37 percent.
  Now, maybe the savings is modest to the taxpayer, but the principle 
is huge, because ultimately the Federal budget cannot grow beyond the 
family's budget ability to pay for it. There is a very important 
precedent that could be set here. Let's take one program and tell the 
American people who have to pay for it, know what, it can do with the 
same amount of money last year that it had this year. Let's protect, 
let's protect the family budget from the Federal budget. Let's adopt 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1915

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment from the gentleman from 
Texas to cut the Community Facility grant program.
  These are grants, please understand, that assist in the development 
of central community facilities in rural areas and towns of up to 
20,000 in population. These are small communities, low populations, low 
income, and they receive a higher percentage of the grants.
  What are they used for? To construct, enlarge, improve community 
facilities. What are those community facilities? It is about health 
care, public safety, community, public services. When you have seen 
what has happened to rural America with the loss of jobs, 
globalization, you have families and livelihoods which have become 
marginal, you also see the fabric of the community and those 
institutions cannot be sustained, and these things go away. And so that 
the local community has an opportunity to create some of these services 
that are necessary, it is vital to small communities, to impoverished 
communities. And they build fire stations, hospitals. They purchase 
ambulances and other critical facilities.
  And if you don't deal with the health care where they have limited 
availability and accessibility, we are going to continually have a 
shortage of health care providers in rural America, and that is a 
disaster.
  Major investments in transportation, telecommunications, and other 
critical services are necessary in many rural areas, and local tax 
bases are unable to support necessary investments and improvements. And 
we know what the topography is in rural areas with the remoteness from 
metropolitan areas adds only to their difficulties.
  This is essential, this program, to really help communities get a 
critical infrastructure. This is building infrastructure in rural 
America, which every report, every study says we need to do in order to 
reenergize and revitalize rural America. I urge you not to vote for 
this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, let's hear from some of the people in 
rural America whose health care is going to be impacted by this bill.
  More spending fuels more taxes. Let's hear it from the McConathy 
family in Mineola, Texas. ``We are retired and on a fixed income. If 
our taxes are raised almost $3,000, we will not be able to afford the 
medication we need.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is coming from the people who have to pay the 
taxes to help pay for the 37 percent increase in this program that the 
Democrat majority wants. Maybe they can spend their money better for 
their health care; and, because of that, I urge adoption of this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Let's be practical. This is about rural America. These are about 
towns that are under 20,000 people who have come together and decided 
they want to build community facilities, community centers so people 
can get together and solve problems. They have to put up the money for 
their match, and they are asking for a competitive grant program, means 
that their ideas have got to compete with other ideas in small towns 
around the Nation.
  This gentleman gets up and berates the fact that he is taking all 
this time to cut this money out of rural America for something that 
they want. You go back and tell your taxpayers that, while we are 
sitting here, we spent $13,732,620 in Iraq in one hour, in one hour. 
And they are building community centers over there for the Iraqis. We 
can build community centers for our communities in the United States.
  I oppose this amendment.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members are advised to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ 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. Let me rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman from Texas's amendment, and I am hoping that the gentleman 
might engage me in a brief question.

[[Page H9624]]

  These grants assist in the development of essential community 
facilities in rural towns of up to 20,000 in population. We talked 
about them in great detail in a number of hearings on the Agricultural 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and witness after witness suggested that 
these Federal funds, in conjunction with local funds, made it possible 
for them to advance the idea of health conversations and broader 
conversations about fire stations and hospitals and purchasing 
ambulances and other critical community facilities.
  I was going to ask the gentleman if he wouldn't mind engaging in just 
a brief colloquy with me. A brief question: Does the gentleman support 
the President's budget?
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. No, I do not.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The gentleman does not support the 
President's budget. Well, that is important, because let us be clear 
that the gentleman's amendment is proposing $16.8 million more than the 
President is proposing in this program.
  The President has zeroed this program out. The committee sought to 
increase the number in this program. And if the gentleman's amendment 
returns it to the 2007 level, the 2007 level is $16.8 million more.
  I encourage you to vote against the Hensarling amendment and support 
the Community Facilities program.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying that, again, this 
is about building infrastructure in rural America.
  The facts are that the demographics are changing in rural America. We 
are looking at communities that have lost jobs, that have lost because 
they can't sustain them, community institutions. These community 
facility grants allow for these communities to access resources in 
order to create the kinds of services that they and their families need 
in order to be able to survive.
  The demographics are going in one direction, and the administration 
will take away all of the opportunities, as with the gentleman from 
Texas, for these communities to be able to thrive. It is wrong, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       Page 48, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,910,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is, 
frankly, identical to the purpose of the previous amendment; and that 
is, let's show the American people that, out of these 10,000 Federal 
programs spread across 600 different agencies, that maybe one of them, 
one of them can do with the same amount of money next year that they 
had last year.
  Instead, this particular program that is involved, the Broadband 
Grants program, in H.R. 3061, spending on the program has doubled, 
increased 100 percent. Again, are people who are expecting to pay for 
this, did their family income go up 100 percent?
  And I have listened carefully to several of the previous speakers, 
and I will be measuring my comments. But, Mr. Chairman, I grew up 
working on my father's family farm. I am the son of a farmer. I am the 
grandson of a farmer. I am the great grandson of a farmer. I grew up in 
rural communities in Texas like Slaton and Naples and Lingelville. So, 
Mr. Chairman, I don't take a back seat to anybody to my commitment to 
rural America. It is where my roots are.
  And so maybe some of the people on the other side of the aisle, maybe 
their constituents are a little different than mine. Maybe the people 
they grew up with and their surroundings and circumstances were 
different than mine. But I spend a lot of time talking to people in 
rural Texas in the counties that I have the pleasure of representing, 
those counties that help comprise the Fifth District of Texas. And they 
would love to all have broadband. They would love to have it.
  And do you know what else they love even more? They would love not to 
have the single largest tax increase in American history imposed upon 
them. They would love to get rid of the death tax that can take away 
the family farm or ranch it took generations to build. That is what 
they would love. They would love the ability to be able to dispose of 
their private property, as they struggle to make their family farms and 
ranches successful. Each one of these has been opposed by the Democrat 
majority. That is what rural America needs. That is what people on the 
farm and ranch need.
  Now, again, the goal of helping bring broadband to rural America is a 
very worthy goal. It is a very lofty goal. And I am sure in just a 
couple minutes we will hear how the entire rural America will come to a 
complete halt if we don't have any Federal, a Federal Government 
program dealing with broadband, notwithstanding the fact that the 
Office of Management and Budget has already noted, ``This program is 
duplicative of the Broadband Loan Program authorized in the 2002 farm 
bill. The areas eligible for grants are also eligible for low-cost 
broadband loans through the RUS.''
  The program is already there. So what are we doing spending double on 
this program, being completely oblivious to the people who have to pay 
for it?
  Again, there is great, great focus on the benefits of this program. 
But where is the focus on the cost?
  Again, I know the gentlelady from Connecticut hears the same 
testimony I do in the Budget Committee, but already we are on track, we 
are on track to double taxes for the next generation. The Comptroller 
General has said that we are on the verge of being the first generation 
in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard 
of living. And so what do we do? We don't even sit idly by. We double 
spending on this particular program, completely oblivious to those who 
have to pay for it, especially future generations.
  If there is anybody who qualifies today for the least of these in the 
political process, it is future generations. And because of that, 
although the principle is large, the sum is modest, I encourage 
adoption of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise again in strong opposition to this amendment 
from the gentleman from Texas. This would cut in half the Broadband 
Community Connect program.
  This funding level will help. First, let me quote to you from 
something called the Carsey Institute Report, Rural America and the 
Twenty-First Century Prospectus from the Field. And this is the quote. 
This is June, 2007: ``Expanded broadband telecommunication is 
essential, is essential, if rural areas are to be competitive in a 
global economy.''
  I can't believe the gentleman would want to move us backward and not 
forward in terms of allowing our communities to move into the 21st 
century and to be able to compete globally. This funding level helps 
more families in rural communities get the access that they need to 
technology. This helps to increase business, employment opportunities, 
greater access to educational and lifesaving medical services.
  This is not a partisan issue. We all support providing increased 
broadband

[[Page H9625]]

services to rural America. Communities that are selected to receive 
grant funds do not currently have access to broadband connectivity for 
central services of police, fire protection, hospitals, local 
governments, libraries, schools. In return, what the communities do, 
because it is a partnership, they provide a community center where you 
have at least 10 computers to be available to the public with hours set 
for instruction and on the use of the Internet.
  This is about economic opportunity and revitalization and the 
potential for improving the quality of life for residents in these 
areas that need to have this infrastructure. The technology is going to 
be the key to the ability of rural businesses and rural economies.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, number one, with all due respect to the 
gentlelady from Connecticut, this amendment would cut nothing. It would 
level fund the program from one year to the next.
  And, again, let's hear the voice of rural America. Let's hear from 
the Peterson family in Van who is going to have to pay for this.
  ``I am a widow, a full-time college student, single mother of a 
growing teen boy. This amount would be impossible to squeeze out. The 
monthly amount is more than half of my monthly vehicle installment and 
more than a third of my monthly housing expense and exceeds my already 
bare bones monthly grocery budget.''
  Let's adopt the amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  Let's put a face on this program. In Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, no 
company had invested in providing broadband delivery to the residents 
until a company called Bitsmart applied for a USDA Community Connect 
Grant. 770 people live in Horseshoe Bend, Idaho. Now, Bitsmart has 
established wireless Internet accessibility and availability, an 
integrated system connecting law enforcement, health care providers and 
school and government offices.
  The USDA Rural Development mission is to increase economic 
opportunity and improve the quality of life for rural residents. To 
level fund a program that connects rural Americans to the rest of our 
country would be a moral disgrace. We are under an obligation in this 
Congress to bring rural communities, where large corporations and 
medium-sized corporations do not invest in them, into the information 
age and make them part of our more perfect union.
  I encourage my colleagues to reject the Hensarling amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I 
hope the author will tell that mother in rural America that his money 
cuts grants to rural areas, to her local schools in rural areas, to her 
hospitals and to her rural businesses who all want to get access to 
broadband. They're leaving the rural area because they don't have this.
  Also tell that mother that the same amount of money is being spent in 
Iraq in 45 minutes, in 45 minutes. In just the time of this debate, 
we're spending more money than this amendment cuts in Iraq to build 
those things that he wants to cut away from rural America.
  This amendment is wrong. I oppose it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. How much time, Mr. Chairman, remains on our side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Connecticut has 1 minute. 
The gentleman from Texas' time has expired.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I was hoping the gentlelady from Connecticut 
would yield for just a brief question.
  Would the gentlelady care to share with the committee what the 
President's proposal was for this particular program in this particular 
budget?
  Ms. DeLAURO. The President's proposal was to zero out the broadband 
program, telemedicine, which is really quite extraordinary in an age of 
technology, an age of trying to bring our communities together and 
particularly rural America. One of the things that we do in this bill 
is we're examining why we have so many underserved areas in terms of 
rural America. And we're going to request that the Inspector General do 
a study of why money isn't going into the underserved areas.
  I don't think that there's an individual in this House, on either 
side of the aisle, that doesn't believe that that is the key to the 
future; the Internet, broadband, telecommunications. It's for urban 
areas. It is particularly for the rural areas which are underserved. 
Again, these are communities population under 20,000. Libraries, 
educational centers.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Kingston

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Kingston:
       Strike section 726.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan 
will control the 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to cut right to the 
chase. We have so little time.
  I yield myself 2 minutes.
  You know, the New York Times highlighted in an investigation in May, 
the global and deadly epidemic of counterfeit drugs. Counterfeit 
product diethylene glycol, an industrial solvent ingredient in 
antifreeze, found its way into cough medicine on our shelves. It was 
traced from Panama, through Spain, from China, all countries that would 
be permitted under this bill.
  We must remember how dangerous this is. And I understand everybody's 
intention to try to lower drug prices to our seniors. That's critically 
important.
  But what we are doing is throwing open the gates to every 
counterfeiter in the world, and the top five countries, China, Russia, 
India, Colombia, the other countries who are trying purposely to 
adulterate our prescription drug safety in the United States of 
America.
  Seventy years ago the same diethylene glycol killed more than 100 
people in the United States. That's why we have the FDA today. And 
guess what? It just happened again in May.
  This is the wrong time to throw away all of those institutional years 
that we've developed to protect our drug supply in America. And I want 
to quickly show, and I apologize for the speed here, Mr. Chairman, but 
we have so little time on such an issue that is so important to the 
United States of America.
  This is one of the facilities that was making drugs in China. How 
many of you would ask your mother to take a drug coming out of this 
facility? None of you. None of you would do it. And it's wrong for us 
just to throw it open for a political gamesmanship to say we're going 
to try to lower drugs. It's dangerous.
  Aricept, to treat Alzheimer's disease, was found to be counterfeit. 
And it looks unbelievably uncanny like the real thing. Let me show you 
real quickly. Look, you cannot tell the difference. Are you going to 
ask an Alzheimer's patient to tell the difference between the real and 
the counterfeit?

[[Page H9626]]

  And guess what? This isn't 70 years ago. This is today. They're 
trying to do this today. I cannot tell you how dangerous this is. We 
should take the opportunity to undo this and go back and use common 
sense.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, first of all, because we are under such 
tight time constraints, I might add, and I understand the points that 
the gentleman from Michigan was making.
  But of course, let me also mention, and I'll submit this for the 
Record, that the foreign facilities inspected for approval by the Food 
and Drug Administration include those from 65 countries, and I'll name 
just a couple: China, Macau, Niue. I don't know if anybody here has 
heard of the country Niue. I'm embarrassed to say that I don't know 
where Niue is. Russia, India and several other countries that at one 
point in time may have been questionable.
  I also want to point out to the gentleman, and I know that he must be 
aware, that 40 percent of all drugs that come into this country that we 
take on an everyday basis, whether it is cholesterol medicine like 
Lipitor, which is made in Ireland, or Prilosec, which is made in 
Sweden, all of these drugs are already imported into the United States. 
So how do we really know if these drugs that are sold by the brand name 
manufacturers actually have ingredients that are safe?
  And I would also say to my colleague from Michigan, who is very, very 
lucky, because Michigan is right next to Canada, and your senior 
citizens are able to cross that border there at Detroit, go into 
Canada, and they can buy their prescription drugs for 40 percent less, 
50 percent less than American citizens can.

                   U.S. Food and Drug Administration

       Foreign Facilities inspected for approval by FDA (65 
     countries)
       Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bahamas, Brazil, 
     Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, 
     Finland, France, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, India, Ireland, 
     Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Macau, Malta, Mexico, 
     Netherlands, Niue, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of 
     Korea, Romania, Russia, Signapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South 
     Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, United 
     Kingdom.

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), who knows that 
30 percent of the prescription medicines in the areas of Latin America, 
Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are counterfeit, all of which would be 
permitted under this bill.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Kingston amendment which 
upholds existing law which allows for the importation of a personal-use 
quantity, a 90-day supply of a prescription medicine from Canada.
  What the Kingston amendment will not allow, though, is the bulk 
importation of pharmaceuticals for the use of so-called Internet 
pharmacies. Internet pharmacies, you don't know where they're getting 
their drugs. They could come and have come from every single continent, 
from nearly every continent on the planet.
  If we want to reduce the price of drugs, we ought to encourage the 
drug companies to eliminate or minimize the price disparity between 
what our citizens pay in the United States and what people around the 
world pay for their prescription drugs. And, Mr. Chairman, we ought to 
reform Medicare part D.
  The Republican plan would subsidize the insurance industry and 
subsidize the drug companies instead of using that money for cheaper 
drugs for our own people in the United States.
  But the Kingston amendment will assure a personal supply that you can 
get from Canada, but will also assure a safe product comes to the 
people of the United States when they get their prescription drugs.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I reserve.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. I would just like to point out, 1, as I was starting to 
say, that our senior citizens, even with Medicare part D, cannot afford 
their prescription drugs. There is no competition in the marketplace.
  And it was very interesting, today I ran into one of the 
pharmaceutical lobbyists who happened to tell me, Oh, my gosh, the 
Kingston amendment is getting us all engaged again in this issue, and, 
you know, we're going to pull out all the stops.
  And I dare say that I would prefer to stand up for my constituents in 
Missouri as opposed to the pharmaceutical companies keeping competition 
and low prices out of this country.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. It's unfortunate the gentlelady would take 
personal comments, when you know that there are Americans and a 
Canadian who was just killed using counterfeit drugs, very unfortunate 
indeed.
  I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the 
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a good friend and a 
great friend of the American people, Mr. Dingell.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment and it should be 
adopted.
  How many of my colleagues saw television last Sunday night when they 
saw the hundreds of thousands of fraudulent counterfeit 
pharmaceuticals, pills that could be imported into the United States 
from China, and saw Chinese entrepreneurs bragging about how many of 
these they could make available?
  You can kill people with bad drugs two ways. One is by giving them 
adulterated, contaminated unsafe drugs. That'll kill them. The other 
way is to give them drugs that don't do anything. And these drugs, 
although cleverly marked and wonderfully packaged, don't do anything.
  How many of you want the blood on your hands of having people killed 
by allowing drugs to be imported which are not safe or which do not do 
what they're supposed to do?
  How many people here want to see to it that your constituents are 
getting drugs which won't deal with hypertension or which won't address 
the problems of cancer or which won't deal with other life-threatening 
drugs, with life-threatening conditions?
  I urge you to support this amendment.
  I commend my good friend from Michigan for his leadership, and I say 
thank you. The Nation owes you a debt.
  The Nation is watching this Congress to see whether or not this 
Congress is going to protect the people or whether we're going to 
expose them to great risk. I challenge my colleagues to do what is 
right.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment 
and to allow the importation of safe prescription drugs into our 
country.
  You know, the pharmaceutical companies are making record profits. I 
represent a district along the Canadian border. Hundreds and hundreds 
and hundreds and hundreds of sick people from our district have to 
drive up over that bridge, the Windsor Bridge, up into Canada in order 
to take care of their mentally ill kids. The senior citizens that can't 
afford drugs, or they've been thrown out of a job, to try to keep house 
and home together as they have to purchase various pharmaceutical 
products.
  What do we have an FDA for if it isn't for certification? That's what 
we want them to do. These drugs are being bought from certified 
pharmacies.
  You know, the seniors that come through the supermarket aisle in the 
place where I shop back home, they're choosing between food and 
medicine. What kind of a choice is that, really?
  You don't have to buy unsafe drugs. You can buy safe drugs. We want 
the FDA to regulate. I'd prefer to see drug prices reach an affordable 
level in our Nation and to make sure that all of our people have full 
prescription drug coverage under Medicare, and that's the direction we 
ought to move, including drug coverage under our insurance programs.
  But there's absolutely no reason to buy the red herring that if you 
buy pharmaceuticals in Canada they're not safe. There isn't a single 
person in my district that has ever gotten sick, because they go to 
certified pharmacies.

[[Page H9627]]

The tragedy is they cannot afford those drugs in this country.
  And I want to compliment Congresswoman DeLauro, who has fought on 
this, Congresswoman Emerson, who has fought on this. It seems like we 
keep fighting this because the pharmaceutical companies keep fighting 
us to do what's right for this country.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Thirty seconds.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I yield the remaining time, as I remind the 
gentlelady from Ohio that this bill would actually eliminate the 
enforcement of the FDA of all the rules, which makes it so dangerous. 
And nobody knows more about the dangers of counterfeit imported drugs 
than the gentleman from New Jersey. I yield my remaining 30 seconds to 
the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kingston 
amendment.
  I have got short time, but earlier this year the Energy and Commerce 
Committee had a hearing on drug safety, and my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), summarized the problem with 
drug importation by referencing a New York Times article just that 
week. She said, ``Counterfeit drugs made in China were exported to 
Panama for sale, and they included a deadly toxin . . . 365 families 
reported deaths as a result of the tainted cough syrup and fever 
medication.''
  My friend, Ms. DeGette, continued: ``Mr. Chairman, the dangers from 
counterfeit and contaminated drugs are frighteningly real, even under 
the current construct. Permitting reimportation would significantly 
increase the risk of counterfeit, misbranded, and adulterated drugs 
that would end up in my constituents' homes.''
  I agree with my friend from the other side of the aisle, the dangers 
related to drug importation the FDA needs the authority to prevent 
counterfeit medicines from coming into America.
  I urge my colleaues to support the Kingston Amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. How much time is left, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has no time left. 
The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 90 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  I want to say this is a major policy change. That is why we are here 
debating it. It is unfortunate we don't have a full Chamber. But the 
reason that I offer this amendment is because I think we should have 
the floor engaged on it, and we will have that opportunity tonight.
  Number two, people are doing this. There are 1 to 3 million people 
who are buying Canadian drugs and drugs from other countries right now. 
If we are interested in safety, we will find a way to make this safe. 
This is a country that just invented the iFone, the iPod, the 
navigation system, and all this stuff. We can figure out how to make 
these drugs safe.
  Finally, as Ms. Kaptur said, these are certified drugs made in the 
United States in most cases.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I reiterate: These are FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved 
facilities. Let's set the record straight.
  The Congress has been misled by the pharmaceutical industry. They 
have stood in the way of keeping safe and affordable prescription drugs 
out of the hands of consumers. They are now misleading us in this 
campaign to scare the American public on the issue of drug importation. 
Prescription drugs can be imported into the United States safely. It 
has been done for decades. Reimportation needs to stay on the table. It 
needs to stay in this bill.
  The drug companies have repeatedly demonstrated the influence that 
they have gained within the FDA and the Bush administration. It is time 
for the Congress and the American people to demonstrate that we are not 
easily swayed. Oppose this amendment.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kingston Amendment 
which would strike language from the bill to implement a fundamental 
change to the FDA's drug safety laws by allowing the commercial re-
importation of prescription drugs.
  The bill is a vast expansion of current policy. Besides allowing 
individuals to bring drugs across the border for their personal use, 
the bill would allow pharmacists and wholesalers to re-import 
prescription drugs for sale in the U.S.
  Let me address the myth that allowing prescription drug reimportation 
will dramatically reduce drug costs for Americans. This has never been 
proven and according to a 2004 report by the Department of Health and 
Human Services, estimated savings to individuals would be less than 1 
percent. I'm concerned about taking serious risks to patient health for 
little or no gain.
  It's important to remember why prescription drug re-importation was 
banned in the first place. Nearly 20 years ago, Congressman John 
Dingell introduced and passed the Prescription Drug Marketing Act. He 
did so on the heels of a multi-year investigation by the Energy and 
Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee.
  The Subcommittee's investigation uncovered a string of abuses that 
were harming patients, including widespread importation of counterfeit 
drugs, drugs that had been tampered with and drugs that were 
incorrectly dosed or wrongly labeled. It showed that wholesalers who 
brought drugs back into the U.S. had no idea where the drugs 
originated, who they were buying them from and whether they were stored 
properly.
  These problems have only worsened in the years that have followed. In 
2003 the FDA and Customs Service found that 88 percent of imported 
medicines entering the U.S. were unapproved or otherwise illegal.
  Mr. Chairman, the FDA is already a beleaguered and underfunded 
agency, a fact which was borne out by the recent incidents involving 
the importation of dangerous food and drug products from abroad, 
including tainted dog food and toothpaste, and Congress continues to 
struggle to find revenue for this vital agency. To require the FDA to 
take on the additional mandate of policing imported drugs will only 
place additional burdens on an already strapped agency.
  I understand the concern of many of my colleagues about the cost of 
prescription drugs, particularly for elderly Americans, and I believe 
there are ways to address these issues without endangering public 
health. We cannot and should not jeopardize the safety of our rug 
supply on the unproven mechanism of re-importation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting YES on the Kingston 
Amendment.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about a highly 
controversial provision that allows for commercial importation of 
prescription drugs from any country, regardless of the safety of their 
prescription drug supply, and includes no safety mechanisms to protect 
Americans from potentially harmful drug imports.
  My greatest concern is the number of counterfeit, illegal, and 
unapproved drugs flowing into the United States right now under a 
system which is closed to prescription drug imports. Today, Customs and 
Border Protection estimates that 273,000 prescription drug imports 
enter our country every single day--of which less than one percent are 
screened before being sent to Americans' homes. A 2003 report by the 
FDA found that 88 percent of the medicines imported into the United 
States were unapproved or otherwise illegal.
  Mr. Chairman, administration after administration, regardless of the 
party in control of the White House, has been unable to certify the 
safety of our prescription drug supply in a market open to prescription 
drug imports. I strongly oppose prescription drug importation and 
encourage my colleagues to support the Kingston amendment to strip the 
appropriations bill of the harmful importation provision.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 3161, 
the FY 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill, I want to voice my serious 
concerns about the provision in the bill that would prevent the U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration, FDA, from protecting U.S. consumers from 
the import of unsafe pharmaceuticals.
  While we have had a de facto policy of allowing the importation of 
personal use quantities of prescription drugs from Canada, the bill 
before us would for the first time allow wholesalers and pharmacists to 
import bulk quantities of prescription drugs from any country, 
regardless of origin. The resulting increase in unregulated drug 
imports into this country would be exponential.
  Such an increase would almost certainly lead to a rise in the number 
of counterfeit drugs and drugs shipped without adequate shipping safety 
precautions, creating serious health risks for patients.
  I understand the need, sometimes the desperate need, for less 
expensive medications.

[[Page H9628]]

To a great extent, this need is a function of the failure of our health 
care system to uniformly provide adequate health care coverage. For 
some 44 million Americans, the system fails to provide any coverage at 
all. And the Medicare Part D doughnut hole continues to make 
medications unaffordable for many seniors.
  We clearly must find a way to make health care, including 
prescription drugs, affordable to more Americans. But reimportation on 
this scale is simply the wrong prescription for what ails us.
  Even if we were to focus more narrowly on imports from Canada--and 
keep in mind that this bill would allow imports from any country--no 
one should assume that the safety issues would be resolved.
  Many American consumers who order prescription drugs from Canadian 
pharmacies assume those medicines are coming from Canada. However, this 
is often not the case.
  In December 2005, FDA announced the results of an operation to 
confiscate parcels containing pharmaceuticals from India, Israel, Costa 
Rica and Vanuatu, 43 percent of which had been ordered from Canadian 
Internet pharmacies. Of the drugs being promoted as ``Canadian,'' 85 
percent actually came from 27 countries around the globe.
  In response to the investigation, then Acting FDA Commissioner Andrew 
C. von Eschenbach said, ``These results make clear there are Internet 
sites that claim to be Canadian that in fact are peddling drugs of 
dubious origin, safety and efficacy.''
  This investigation raises serious questions about the form such an 
importation program would take. Who are the ``wholesalers'' and 
``pharmacies'' that would be importing in large quantities and how 
would they be regulated? How would their operations interface with the 
existing supply chain? How would FDA protect consumers from fraud or 
drug contamination?
  Congress has previously given HHS the authority to permit bulk drug 
reimportation, but both the Clinton and Bush administrations declined 
to use this authority because of the intractable safety issues 
involved.
  I simply cannot support tying the hands of the FDA with regard to the 
importation of prescription drugs when their safety and effectiveness 
cannot be guaranteed. I urge a yes vote on the Kingston amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Kingston

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Kingston:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee 
     of the Department of Agriculture who would require contracts 
     to construct renewable energy systems to be carried out in 
     compliance with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at a time right now when people are paying $3.10 
for gas, $3.30 a gas. Gas is on the rise, and our options are limited. 
We are importing 60 percent of our oil.
  It is ironic that on an Ag policy where 2 percent of the population 
is feeding all 100 percent, if we were importing 50 percent of our 
food, it would be a national security crisis, and yet oil, which is 
just as important, we are importing 60 percent of it.
  During this time when we are in desperate need for alternative energy 
options, we should not increase the price of making cellulosic ethanol. 
And yet in the Ag bill, there was a clause that says if you are 
building an ethanol plant, you have to have prevailing wages, which 
drives up the cost of the plant and, therefore, drives up the cost of 
ethanol.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose this 
amendment.
  This amendment smacks right at heart of our wage structure, of fair 
wages and protected wages. Long before Taft-Hartley, before the Wagner 
Act, this was put on the books in 1931, 76 years ago.
  And I might add Davis-Bacon was put on the books by a Republican 
administration, President Hoover, because at that time it was needed to 
have wage stabilization. Davis-Bacon is the cornerstone of the wage 
protection structure in this country that has produced the middle class 
that has been the backbone of this country. Davis-Bacon prevents 
underbidding of any contractor coming in on a government contract, low 
bidding and attempting to bring in a contract and hire workers below 
the prevailing wage. It is most important. And I might say, Mr. 
Chairman, this amendment was dealt with in the Agriculture Committee 
and soundly defeated at that time.
  Essentially, what they are proposing is this: In the Ag bill, we have 
dedicated $4 billion for loan guarantees to set up ethanol plants. Now, 
Mr. Chairman, these are highly sophisticated operations. In order to 
come in and to be able to have the opportunity to be able to process an 
Internet technology, a foreign operation and a product that is clearly 
into the future, clearly we need the best talent, the best skills. We 
don't need not to protect the prevailing wage in this community.
  Now, my opponents are going to come and say they are probably talking 
about union wages. Nothing in here says that. It says prevailing wages, 
prevailing wages that are set by a scientific survey that goes in and 
takes a survey of the wages in that local community. Why should the 
government be an instrument to come in and undermine a local 
community's labor standards? That is what Davis-Bacon was put in to 
protect, and that is why this is so important here today.
  We need not be a thief coming in to take away from a local community 
what they have earned and their wage standards at their level. Why 
should the government come in and allow for this to happen? These 
protections were put in to prevent fly-by-night operations from coming 
into a community. Because so many government contracts are to the lower 
bidder and sometimes they bid low so they can go out and pay these low 
wages that are below the prevailing wage in that community. It is wrong 
to do that and, quite honestly, unAmerican. Because this law, Davis-
Bacon, has been on the books for 75 years and has done this country 
good, and we deserve to keep it in.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia 
for yielding.
  I listened attentively to the other gentleman from Georgia, who spoke 
with such confidence and authority on the Davis-Bacon wage scale. I may 
be the only Member of Congress, I know of no others, who has earned 
Davis-Bacon wages and paid Davis-Bacon wages, and I have lived 
underneath that for over 30 years, 28 years writing paychecks, over 14 
consecutive months meeting payroll. I know what this does.
  But I can tell you the history of it also goes back to an Iowan, an 
Iowan President, as the gentleman said, Herbert Hoover.
  But this is the last remaining Jim Crow law on the books that I know 
of. It was designed to keep blacks out of the construction trade in New 
York. And I would ask the gentleman from Georgia to join me in helping 
to start the repeal of this process because this is the aspect of 
freedom between the employer and the employee.
  Prevailing wage by definition, union scale in practice, there is no 
other way

[[Page H9629]]

to analyze this. Union scale is what gets produced when the Department 
of Labor produces the proposed prevailing wage.
  And when you talk about $4 billion set up for cellulosic and its 
being a highly sophisticated project, yes, it is; and we build these 
projects without its being union labor sometimes. If they can compete, 
we do it with union labor. My former crews have done so, and they are 
highly skilled and highly trained, and they get paid a wage that often 
is a 12-month-a-year wage, not something for just the hours they are on 
the job but wages and benefits so they can make a good wage and stay 
with you year round.
  There was over a billion dollars invested in renewable energy in my 
district last year. There will be over a billion dollars invested this 
year. We are number one in biodiesel production in America of the 435 
districts. We will be number one in ethanol by the end of this year. 
And there is no way that any other district in the country has a hope 
of catching up with the Fifth Congressional District of Iowa if you are 
going to impose Davis-Bacon wage scales on this and burn up at least 20 
percent of the capital that will go into this. The cellulosic is 
experimental, and it is in my neighborhood. We need to invest the 
dollar as well.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for a 
very practical reason. The State of California, which is probably the 
most populous State in the United States, has done more for cutting 
energy costs by doing energy conservation and renewable energy. It has 
built all kinds of plants, all kinds of opportunities for renewable 
energy. It has reduced the per capita energy use in the United States 
to the lowest per capita in the country, doing the best job. And every 
one of those facilities was built under Davis-Bacon law.
  It is not a problem. We have built every courthouse, every 
schoolhouse, every road, every capital in this country. It has been on 
the books for a long, long time. And this is just a get at labor, get 
at people, try to cut wages, go to the lowest cost. Essentially, it 
increases all kinds of imported labor.
  This is the wrong way to do it. It is a mean amendment, and it should 
be defeated.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
  I wanted to say what we are talking about here is if a business goes 
and gets a loan, then the government, because it is a government loan, 
turns around then and basically dictates what they have to pay, and 
what they have to pay is a higher wage than it is in most communities. 
Otherwise, the Democrats would not be putting it in here. If this was 
about free enterprise, this clause would not be in the farm bill.
  And my biggest gripe is that it is making energy costs go up because 
it is making the construction of alternative energy facilities higher. 
As Mr. King says, it is about a 20 percent bump in the cost of 
construction of a cellulosic ethanol plant. That's why I think it is a 
concern.
  Who is going to pay for this? The consumers at the pump. And, in the 
meantime, there might be fewer alternatives.
  In Georgia right now my good friend, Mr. Scott, knows we have three 
ethanol plants on the books, another two coming, and potentially 70 to 
80 that will be built in the next 2 to 3 years. Now those are not all 
cellulosic ethanol plants, but why should we increase the cost of 
those?
  I am excited about this because it does represent a new avenue in 
alternative fuels, and I don't think we should make anything increase 
the cost of that.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  I had to come back to respond to Mr. King's assertion that Davis-
Bacon was put in for some reason to prevent black workers from working.
  I went back to the point of the law so I could make sure I could 
clarify that. This is what the law says: Adopted in 1931 by President 
Hoover as an emergency measure intended to help stabilize the 
construction industry and to encourage employment at fair wages, not 
less than those prevailing in the locality of the construction work and 
not to keep black people from working.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia controls 1 minute. 
The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 45 seconds.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  It's interesting to me how the components of history don't match up 
the same from what I read and what the other gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Scott) reads. And I've read through a fair amount of this history.
  But the foundation of the Davis-Bacon wage scale went back to a 
Federal building contract that was awarded on low bid in New York City. 
And there was a contractor that brought in labor from Alabama, and it 
was African American labor from Alabama because they would work cheaper 
than the union labor in New York City. That's an historical fact.
  This is a Jim Crow law. And I would appreciate it if the gentleman 
would join me in repealing it from the books. But it's a practical 
application today. It's 8-35 percent more money when you go Davis-Bacon 
wage scale. I average it out to 20 percent.
  My company, that I sold to my oldest son, has done work on these 
sites, and we know the costs and we know the skills that are there. And 
we're developing the skills within our region and our neighborhood 
because we keep those people 12 months out of the year. They don't 
always go in and out of the union hall; if they can compete, they do. 
But we need to develop the skills and intellectual property. We need to 
develop our fuel so that we aren't importing oil from the Middle East.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Why? Why 
would we want to deny American workers, including those involved in 
rural development, the opportunity to receive fair prevailing wage 
protection? It's a matter of fairness for working men and women.
  This is a program that is 75 years old, started by a Republican 
Congress in a Republican administration. The amendment attempts to undo 
what the House farm bill passed last week.
  Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon prevents our workers from being exploited, 
and it encourages high-quality work. Again, I urge the rejection of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


             Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 5.5 percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.

[[Page H9630]]

  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, government 
spends too much money. Ask any American family, is government so lean, 
so efficient, has it tightened its belt so much that it just can't cut 
anymore, it has to spend what this bill purports to spend and wants to 
spend? And if you ask a typical American family that, you're going to 
get an overwhelmingly, No, government is too big; it spends too much.
  And if you don't believe the American people and American families, 
look at the numbers. We have a $3 trillion budget we're dealing with 
here. We have an $8 trillion national debt. The government spends 
$23,000 per American household. We have an entitlement crisis that 
everybody knows is going to happen here in the next 10 to 15 years when 
you think about what we face in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security. And then this bill grows, over last year's spending level, 
2\1/2\ times the rate of inflation, 5.9 percent increase over last 
year, $1 billion increase in spending over what we did last year.
  My amendment is real simple. Frankly, it's the same amendment I've 
offered, now this is the ninth time. All non-defense related 
appropriations bills we have offered this amendment to, and the 
amendment is real simple. It says we're not going to cut anything; 
we're just going to spend what we spent last year. A pretty modest 
first step in beginning to get a handle on the spending that is out of 
control with the Federal Government.
  Because one thing I know for certain, I've said this several times, 
but it's so true in my time in public life. We always hear about tax 
and spend politicians. The truth is, it's spend and tax. Spending 
always drives the equation. More and more spending inevitably leads to 
higher taxes and more taxes. In fact, we've seen that from this body 
over the last several weeks, tax increases on American families, 
American business owners, tax increases that hurt those families, hurt 
our businesses, and ultimately hurt our economy.
  This is a simple amendment which says, let's spend what we spent last 
year; after all, all kinds of families, all kinds of taxpayers, all 
kinds of business owners have had to do that time and time again. It's 
not too much to ask the Federal Government that has a $3 trillion 
budget, an $8 trillion debt, and spends $23,000 per household, it is 
not too much to ask the Federal Government to do the same thing.
  And with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, which would cut all of the agencies and programs in the bill 
by 5.5 percent to stay at the 2007 level.
  This would represent a cut of more than $1 billion from the bill. Now 
is exactly the wrong time to cut funding for the critical programs 
under this bill. It is not the way to restore fiscal discipline and 
balance the budget.
  Rather than using targeted precision cuts, as we have done with the 
bill, an across-the-board cut hurts core programs, increases the 
investment deficits our communities across the country have had to 
overcome in the past years, regardless of the value of the program. We 
face investment deficits in fundamental programs, rural and economic 
development, nutrition, international food assistance, agriculture 
exports, conservation, food and drug safety.
  I mentioned in my opening remarks that the fiscal year 2008 mark 
provides total discretionary resources of $18.8 billion, $1 billion 
above 2007, $982 million above the budget request. These are modest 
increases, but critical to provide basic services to rural communities 
to feed those in need and support conservation efforts. And 95 percent 
of the increase in this bill is used precisely to restore these 
programs.
  If we cut $1 billion from the bill, as the gentleman is proposing, 
this is what would happen: we would not be able to fund these efforts 
in rural development. Direct loans for the section 515 Rural Multi-
Family Rental Housing Program; section 502 directs single family 
housing programs; broadband grants, the Community Connect Broadband 
Program; Empowerment Zone; Enterprise Community Program; Community 
Facility Grant Program; Rural Business Enterprise and Opportunity 
Grants Program. We would have to significantly cut funding for water 
and waste grants, mutual self-help housing grant programs, farm labor 
housing loans and grants. In conservation, we will eliminate funding 
for the Watershed Flood Prevention Operation.
  Watershed surveys and planning. Cut funding for the Watershed 
Rehabilitation Program, Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, and the 
Resources Conservation and Development Program.
  Nutrition. Without $1 billion, we may not be able to restore funding 
for the Commodities Supplemental Food Program. We may have to cut WIC 
administrative grants to States.
  The increases needed and provided in this bill are not based on the 
belief that we should just throw money at the challenges that we face. 
The modest increases are about meeting the Federal Government's 
obligation.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I appreciate the Chair of the subcommittee and 
her work. But, frankly, the other side has got to get a new playbook. 
Every time we do this, they talk about devastating cuts and how it's 
going to ruin this, the sky is going to fall, the world is going to 
end, everything's going to go to, you know. They always use that. It's 
not even a cut. We're going to spend what we spent last year.
  And just let me ask the question of the American people: Do you 
think, instead of spending $18.8 billion, do you think government can 
get along with spending $17.7 billion? We made it last year on that; 
didn't seem to be too much to ask before. We always hear it is a 
devastating cut when it's not even a cut.
  Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the amount of time that we have 
remaining on each side.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Both sides have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would just concur that I think what we need to do is 
to look at core programs. Whether it is at the USDA or at the FDA, the 
gentleman's amendment would force all of these agencies that cover 
rural development, and I laid out the programs. Again, if you take a 
look at the demographics of rural America and their needs, which have 
to do with water and conservation and transportation and broadband and 
housing, by the very nature of your amendment, we've cut $1 billion 
from all those very, very critically important programs that are 
meeting the needs today of rural America in an effort that they may be 
able to re-energize and revitalize their communities, put together the 
kinds of community institutions that will help people in rural America 
to be able to thrive. They have taken a terrible blow in wages and in 
globalization. And what you would do with your amendment is just snatch 
that money from these kinds of efforts.
  And I will just say this to you: quite honestly, what we've tried to 
do is, because the administration, and I'm presuming that this is 
something that you support along with the administration, is to say to 
rural America, You're on your own. If you don't have it, forget about 
it, we're not going to be there to help you. Government has a 
responsibility, a moral responsibility, to engage when people are 
facing challenges in their lives.
  I believe everyone in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle would 
concur on what we are seeing happening in rural America and what is 
happening to the economic stability of this area and of these 
communities and of these individuals. It's not statistics; it's people. 
It's people's lives; it's people's abilities to have health care, to 
take their kids to school, to be able to afford education and 
transportation costs. Why would you want to take that away?
  Why would you want to decimate nutrition programs when 40 percent of 
children in rural America are dependent upon food stamps? Why would you 
want to say no to nutrition when one out of eight families with an 
infant in this Nation is food insecure?
  Let me tell you what food insecure means. It means they're hungry. 
They're hungry in the richest country

[[Page H9631]]

in the world; and that is wrong, which is why your amendment really 
should be defeated, and it makes no sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                  Announcement By the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Before yielding to my friend from Georgia, let me 
say this: the lady used the term ``take away.'' For the umpteenth time, 
we're not taking away anything. We want to spend what we spent last 
year. The reason we don't want to increase spending is because 
everybody knows, the American people know this, when you increase 
spending and spend and spend and spend, it leads to tax and tax and 
tax. And that's what hurts those same families the gentlelady was 
talking about.
  When you take more of their money, money that they could invest in 
their kids, pay for their kids' education, pay for that vacation they 
want to take as a family, all kinds of things they want to spend it on, 
when you take that away from them, that's what really taking away from 
families is all about. That's what we want to stop.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member, my good 
friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), for the remainder of our time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
  I want to say that I support this for two reasons. Number one, this 
bill will be vetoed by the President should it make it through the 
United States Senate, which is doubtful to begin with, but that's 
nothing we can control over here. But we know the President has sent 
out a veto message that the spending level is too high.
  We have debated this in committee before. I offered a similar 
amendment that failed. But I think we need to be realistic. The bill 
that we're spending tonight is not realistic.
  Number two, I want to point out something. This is actually not a 5.5 
percent cut because it's not an $18 billion bill. It's really a $90 
billion bill. However, because of what I would call negligence on the 
part of the House, practiced by Republicans and Democrats over the 
years, we have decided to put about three-quarters of this bill on 
automatic spending. We call it mandatory. Now, nothing is mandatory 
when you make the laws. Nothing is mandatory. So it's kind of lazy. 
It's just sort of ``spend as is.''
  And my friend from Connecticut has said that the gentleman from 
Ohio's amendment would actually take the nutrition and food programs 
away from children, yet most of them fall into this red category, which 
isn't even touched by his amendment.
  His amendment is actually very conservative. It only affects about 
the $18 billion portion of this bill. And again, that's not where most 
of these food programs are, these critical programs. Now, I'm a 
believer that we should be debating both the red and the yellow 
portions of this bill and look at it realistically because this is a 
$90 billion bill, and the 5.5 percent only affects $18 billion.
  And with that, I want to say that's why I think that it is important 
for us to always look into the authorizing side of a spending bill and 
the discretionary side.
  I do support the amendment. And we have had this amendment, a similar 
amendment, in committee already. My friends on the committee have known 
my position on this.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available to the Auburn University 
     for the Catfish Pathogen Genomic Project, Auburn, AL.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Agricultural Research Service--
     Salaries and Expenses'' is hereby reduced by $878,046.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, it's my intent to offer a number of earmark 
limitation amendments to the FY 2008 Agriculture appropriation bill.
  In offering these earmark limitation amendments, I hope that my 
colleagues will join me in finally grabbing the reins on runaway 
earmark spending, and if you will pardon the pun, plant the seed of 
fiscal discipline in the appropriation process.
  In its present form, this bill is under veto threat because it jumps 
the rails of the President's plan to have a balanced budget by 2012 by 
close to $1 billion. Part of the $1 billion increase in spending over 
last year's levels is caused by over 400 earmarks in the bill worth 
over $300 million that direct taxpayer dollars to congressionally 
selected projects.

                              {time}  2015

  As my colleagues have heard me say a few too many times, I am sure, 
passing appropriation bills that contain hundreds of earmarks worth 
millions of dollars that are simply noted by phrases in the committee 
report shortchanges the legislative process of authorization, 
appropriation and oversight. The earmarking process is fraught with a 
lack of transparency, fiscal responsibility and equity for taxpayers, 
all too often rewarding the districts of powerful Members of Congress 
in the Appropriations Committee at the expense of the rest of the body.
  Let me just note that, according to a review of the bill in a report 
by Taxpayers for Common Sense, members of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee and party leadership, who make up 5 percent 
of the House, will take home one-third of the dollar value of 
agricultural earmarks, nearly $100 million.
  If you assume that earmarks with multiple sponsors are shared 
equally, members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and 
party leadership will send an average of about 4 million earmarked 
dollars back to their districts.
  In contrast, if you look at the remaining earmarked funds and 
distribute them evenly over the remaining 400-plus House districts, at 
best they would value slightly less than $500,000. As I have said 
repeatedly, we are creating winners and losers here.
  I'm usually referring to industries that are refunded by the 
earmarks. But it is true also here in Congress, if you are a seasoned 
Member in a position of influence, you typically get a lot more. It is 
simply not right for all the high-minded purpose we give to the 
contemporary practice of earmarks, talking about Article 1 of the 
Constitution and the authority it gives us, to then turn around and the 
leadership and the members of the Appropriations Subcommittee that 
control the bill get so much more than anyone else. It hardly seems 
fair. It hardly seems right.
  In particular, this amendment would prohibit $878,046 in Federal 
funds from being used for catfish genome research in Auburn, Alabama, 
and would reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. I think 
that this is definitely one earmark that the taxpayers would love to 
throw back.
  According to the earmark description in the certification letter, the 
funding would go to Auburn University ``to help continue important 
research into the genomic behavior of catfish in order to resist and 
cope with virulent disease strains.'' It appears to me that the earmark 
is intended to make a genetic map of catfish.
  Mr. Chairman, there are so many earmarks in this bill related to 
genetic research, I feel I am on some kind of farm-based CSI episode. 
Unfortunately, this isn't a creative drama. This spending is far too 
real. This seems to be a perennial earmark. It has received over

[[Page H9632]]

$1 million in the last 3 fiscal years alone.
  Where is the Federal nexus here? Why are we funding catfish research 
and not trout research? What about sunfish out there? Don't they 
deserve something? How do we choose here? How do we choose which 
university gets the funding? It is simply an arbitrary process based on 
your position on a committee or in the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, that seems wrong to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first start by 
yielding 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, every year, the administration has castigated the 
Congress for funding these items. In fiscal year 2007, in the 
continuing resolution, we left the decision up to the administration. 
In order to decide what to do, the administration conducted an 
extensive review of all of the ``earmarks'' in the Agriculture Research 
Service account. Do you know what? They decided that the vast, 
overwhelming proportion of the earmarks were worth funding. This one on 
catfish genomics was approved by the administration. It may have a 
funny name, but it makes a good sound bite.
  I am sure that the members of each party that requested this funding 
can tell the House a lot about the importance of the catfish industry 
to their State and the economic losses from the disease in a very 
serious way.
  We also have recently witnessed what is happening with imported 
product in terms of catfish from China and, in fact, what that has done 
to that market in these communities.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
bringing attention to this vitally important research being conducted 
at Auburn University, an outstanding university in my district.
  As my colleagues from Alabama know, and specifically my friend and 
colleague, Mr. Davis from the Seventh District, Auburn University is 
the home to USDA Aquatic Animal Health Research Laboratory. This 
laboratory conducts important research to help solve challenges in 
aquaculture that diminish productivity, lower the quality of catfish 
products, and hurt the long-term health of our domestic producers.
  As my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee know, catfish is the 
leading aquaculture industry in the United States. In 2005, according 
to USDA, domestic producers sold 650 million pounds of catfish valued 
at $460 million. That total is only expected to grow. Today, catfish 
production has become one of the most important agricultural activities 
in States such as Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and, of course, my 
home State of Alabama.
  In recent years, the American catfish industry has been faced with 
intense competition from foreign producers, specifically countries like 
China and Vietnam. This not only poses serious challenges to our 
economy but, as we have seen in recent news reports about tainted 
Chinese food products, also to our health. In 2005, Alabama, Louisiana 
and Mississippi banned Vietnamese catfish after U.S. health officials 
detected a banned antibiotic in Vietnamese imports. That ban remains in 
effect. In May of this year, Alabama banned Chinese catfish over the 
same concern.
  As with many agricultural imports, we have no control over what drugs 
these foreign countries are giving to their catfish, nor do we know 
what diseases they are trying to prevent. But one thing we do know is 
that we do not want these products, these diseases and those threats to 
our food and our health in our country.
  That is why the funding included in this bill for the Catfish 
Pathogen Genomic Project is so important. It helps protect the safety 
and health of our food supply, it helps protect and strengthen 
important American products and an industry critical to the economics 
of several States, and it helps carry on the tradition of university 
based research supported by the Federal Government that benefits our 
economy and society.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask the 
support of my colleagues for this important research program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has 1 minute. The 
gentleman from Alabama has 90 seconds.
  Mr. FLAKE. Let me just say there is over at the Department of 
Agriculture something called the Agricultural Research Service, or ARS, 
account, and it is being funded at over $1 billion for fiscal year 
2008. Now, we may not like the programs they choose to fund. If we 
don't like it and we don't think they have a good process, we should 
exercise the oversight that we are supposed to exercise and change it. 
But to circumvent that process and say because you may not have given 
us a grant in one particular year then we are simply going to go around 
you and earmark, that simply seems wrong.
  We are getting away from the authorization, appropriation, oversight 
program and process that has been the hallmark of this Congress 
forever. With earmarking, the contemporary process of earmarking, we 
are circumventing that and we do very little oversight of the Federal 
agencies, because we are seeking to compete with them.
  We set up a program over there and we say you have a merit-based 
program, a competitive grant program, and then, when they don't choose 
what we want to, we circumvent it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend 
and colleague from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I just want to stand in defense 
of the subcommittee and its work. We tried to be as responsive to 
members on this committee as possible, given that many members of the 
committee do not understand the specific details of every congressional 
district. But this is what Congressman Artur Davis had to say:
  ``Auburn University is seeking funding to continue research on 
endemic and emerging pathogens of catfish. Because the prevalence of 
catfish diseases constitutes $90-100 million in annual losses for 
catfish farmers, it is important to prevent these diseases to ensure a 
healthy national food supply and a successful economic development 
activity. This funding will allow Auburn University to conduct outreach 
to farmers and ensure that these vaccines make it into the field to 
protect the food supply of the American people. Earlier research from 
this project has already led to the commercialization of two vaccines 
that are now helping in the reduction of these disease losses.''
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Rogers, and I also want to thank 
Congressman Artur Davis for looking out for the interests of this vital 
industry in their State. The committee did its work and honored their 
request. We should vote down the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by saying 
to my friend from Arizona, I share his concerns over some of our fiscal 
behavior in this Congress in recent years, but clearly this kind of 
USDA research university partnership is exactly what we should be 
fostering, given our concerns in this country about our food supply and 
its safety.
  Mr. Jackson did make reference to the fact that, in 2003, half of our 
catfish production was being affected by two diseases that this 
partnership has now alleviated. We can continue to ensure that supply 
is safe with this kind of expenditure.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H9633]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available to Cornell University 
     for Grape Genetics research, Geneva, NY.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Agricultural Research Service--
     Salaries and Expenses'' is hereby reduced by $628,843.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate $628,843 for 
the Grape Genetics Program at Cornell University and reduce the cost of 
the bill by a corresponding amount.
  Mr. Chairman, it would seem that Congress is a one-stop shop for the 
wine industry. There is in this bill here $628,843 earmarked for the 
Grape Genetics Program, as mentioned, in addition to a $2.6 million 
earmark to actually construct the Center for Grape Genetics.
  The earmark description in the certification letter submitted to the 
committee by the sponsor of the earmark informs us that this earmark 
would fund a full-time grape geneticist at the Grape Genetics Research 
Unit and support the viability of the grape and wine industry.
  Now, according to some, the wine industry faces a growing demand for 
new technologies and varieties in order to be a player in the global 
marketplace. I don't doubt that at all. I don't deny that research and 
development is important to the wine and grape industry. I simply 
question why the Federal Government is expected to foot the bill for a 
private industry.
  According to recent reports, direct sales of wine to consumers are up 
30 percent this year. Let me repeat that. Direct sales of wine to 
consumers are up 30 percent this year.
  According to a study unveiled by the Congressional Wine Caucus 
earlier this year, the U.S. wine, grape and grape products industry 
contributes more than $160 billion annually to the U.S. economy, $160 
billion annually.
  This study indicated that the industry supports more than 1 million 
full-time equivalent positions and that there are more than 900,000 
grape-bearing acres in the U.S. In addition, according to the 2006 
report by the USDA, New York has 239 wineries currently, as opposed to 
17 in 1976. I would submit that this looks like an industry that is 
thriving.
  If the Federal Government is going to support genetic research for 
one industry, why doesn't the Federal Government provide support for 
all of them? What mechanism is there to stop Congress from funding mold 
research on gourmet cheese, or soil research for truffle farming? Where 
does it stop? Where is the Federal nexus here? Why do we continue to 
fund these profitable industries?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment 
because, if nothing else, it points out the essentially beneficial 
nature of public-private partnerships. Just as the Federal Government 
paid for the marvelous water projects in the West which helped Mr. 
Flake's State to grow and prosper, these research dollars have made the 
United States the global power in agriculture.
  The Agriculture Research Service established the Grape Genetics 
Research Unit in Geneva, New York, at the center of New York's grape-
growing region in conjunction with Cornell University.

                              {time}  2030

  The goals of this program are to reduce losses to crop yield and 
quality that result from disease, pests and environmental stress, and 
to improve grape and grape product quality and utilization.
  The genetic research unit's primary research areas are development of 
resistance to pests and diseases, superior adaptation of grapes to 
growing conditions and tolerances for environmental and weather-related 
stress, and improved product quality through enhanced knowledge of 
genetic factors governing color, flavor, aroma, sensory characteristics 
and yield.
  The grape genetics research unit works with growers both in New York 
and nationally to develop root stocks and grape varieties that are pest 
and disease resistant.
  The explosive growth that my friend from Arizona mentioned is a 
direct result of the research that is being done here and elsewhere in 
the United States thanks to the support of the American taxpayer. The 
plant genetic research unit in Geneva works very closely with farmers 
in all parts of the country. In fact, 1,200 varieties of grapes are 
growing at the Geneva ag station today.
  Nationally, it is a $30 billion industry, the wine industry. There 
are 23,000 growers; 5,000 wineries; and in New York State, it is a $7 
billion industry. This industry is paying back to the Federal 
Government, the State and communities $17 billion in taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, nobody questions the 
validity or the importance of research. Every industry needs to do it, 
and do a lot of it. But we have a lot of high-tech industries that are 
vital to this country. Why aren't we funding a company like Intel, for 
example, for issues related to testing of circuit boards? That is 
important. They face international competition.
  Why do we say all right here, only we are going to fund grape 
research? Also, when we have a program over at the Department of 
Agriculture that we fund to the tune of a billion dollars this year to 
actually provide grants in this area, and still it is not enough. Still 
we say we have to earmark funds to go around that process. It seems 
like overkill, and I think the taxpayer deserves a break here at some 
point.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
friend and colleague from Utica, New York, in whose district Geneva 
resides, Mr. Arcuri.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my colleague from New York, and I thank the 
distinguished chairwoman from Connecticut.
  Mr. Chairman, I have only been here for 7 months, but in that short 
time it has become overwhelmingly clear to me that some of my 
colleagues are more concerned with establishing a reputation than 
addressing the needs of the American people.
  Over and over, some of these colleagues from the other side of the 
aisle march down to the floor and take aim at appropriations projects 
that they feel aren't worthy of Federal support, as if people at one 
end of the country know what is important for people on the other end 
of the country.
  I hear them talk about these earmarks and try to demonize them, talk 
about them being hidden and going to powerful Members of Congress. 
Well, there is nothing hidden about this. It is very clear what this 
project is. And as for powerful Members of Congress, I would like to be 
impressed, but I know as a freshman I am certainly not a powerful 
Member of Congress.
  There are no winners or losers here. They talk about winners or 
losers here. The only winners are the American people. This program is 
for the American people. It is to ensure that our grapes and our wines 
that are so important to so many people in this country continue to be 
high quality and the kind of quality that makes America competitive.
  The benefit of this project is not limited to my congressional 
district, but to people all over the country. Mr. Chairman, it is not 
about making a point or establishing a reputation; it is about 
conducting important research

[[Page H9634]]

that protects the safety of our food supply, helps our domestic economy 
and the grape industry.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to close, again, research is 
important in every industry, but there are industries all over the 
country in agriculture, in high tech, in storage, in transportation, 
you name it. It is going on all over, and not everyone is looking to 
the Federal Government to pay their research costs.
  Why here? Why do we have an organization that gets earmarks virtually 
every year for the same thing over and over and over again? When does 
the taxpayer get a break? When is this industry weaned?
  We just had a farm bill pass last week with subsidies going on and on 
and on. Here are more agricultural subsidies. I don't know where it 
stops, particularly with the deficit we have, the ongoing debt that we 
carry. It is time to give the taxpayers a break. I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to my 
dear friend and colleague for providing me with this time to say a 
couple of things in opposition to this amendment. I think the person 
who is proposing this amendment simply does not understand what is 
being done here.
  The agricultural industry is a very important part of the economy of 
New York State, one of the most essential parts of the economy of New 
York State. The grape industry is an important part of the agricultural 
industry. This Grape Genetics Research Center, which has been 
established as a result of legislation which was put forward by Mr. 
Walsh and myself and others in 2005, is an important part of the way 
grape production is advancing in the United States and becoming a more 
important part of American agriculture. It is providing jobs for our 
citizens, and it is providing more and more economic growth in a number 
of parts of our country all across our country.
  It enables grape growers to deal with the cold winters in the 
Northeast and enables grape growers to deal with the arid circumstances 
that they confront in certain parts of southern California and the 
other forms of diverse issues that need to be dealt with by grape 
growers in many places across the country.
  This means of searching into this industry and providing better ways 
of doing it is an important part in the way in which we are protecting 
and growing our agricultural economy.
  I would hope that the offeror of this amendment would spend a few 
moments to look more closely at these circumstances, because I think if 
he does, he might begin to understand the value of agriculture and the 
value of this kind of genetics research.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-290.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for the Alternative Uses 
     for Tobacco, Maryland grant.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Cooperative State Research, 
     Education, and Extension Service--Research and Education 
     Activities'' (and the amount specified under such heading for 
     special grants for agricultural research) are hereby reduced 
     by $400,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $400,000 in 
Federal funds from being used for alternative uses for tobacco in 
Maryland and reduces the cost of the bill by a consistent amount.
  I would suggest to my colleagues that we can find some better 
alternative uses for the taxpayers' money, like paying down the 
national debt, for example.
  In fact, just yesterday, Treasury Secretary Paulson predicted that 
the Treasury will reach the nearly $9 trillion statutory debt limit in 
early October. I would argue that this is a sign that we need to spend 
less on appropriation bills just like this one.
  The certification letter submitted to the Appropriations Committee 
stated that the funding will go to the University of Maryland College 
of Agriculture and Natural Resources for the Alternative Uses of 
Tobacco Research Project.
  The funding for this earmark is through the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service Special Research Grants 
account, which are congressionally directed and noncompetitive research 
earmarks.
  The Alternative Uses of Tobacco Research Project is focused on 
finding new, nonsmoking uses for tobacco, such as pharmaceutical or 
biotechnology applications.
  I am not denying that there aren't potential benefits for this 
research for the tobacco industry, for pharmaceutical industry, or for 
other biotechnology industries, but how long is the taxpayer going to 
be expected to fund specific research for the benefit of these 
industries?
  This is not a new earmark. In fact, the project has received earmarks 
of between $320,000 and $400,000 each year since fiscal year 2002. 
Including this earmark, the University of Maryland will have received 
over $2 million in Federal earmarks for their alternative use project.
  Why are we singling out this program and this school and earmarking 
funds for it year after year after year? What makes this program at the 
University of Maryland more deserving than Federal funds at other 
schools or organizations in Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, California or 
elsewhere around the country? There are many other earmark projects 
that we are funding at the University of Maryland as well.
  According to research done by Citizens Against Government Waste, from 
2001 to 2006, the University of Maryland received just under $17 
million in Federal earmarks. I think it is interesting to note in 2006 
the University of Maryland paid lobbying firms more than $200,000 for 
various lobbying activities. Are these lobbyists lobbying Congress for 
additional earmarks?
  When do we say enough is enough? When the smoke clears, the taxpayers 
are still being asked to fund tobacco research.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. My friend from Arizona is having a good time. I don't 
blame him, but this is something that is good for the country. It is 
good for literally millions of people who have grown tobacco.
  Let me say to my friend from Arizona: A, I don't smoke; B, I have 
never smoked. And when redistricting occurred and I got most of the 
tobacco-growing areas of Maryland, I went down and met with the Farm 
Bureau. I said, Look, I'm new to you. You don't know me. Actually, they 
did know me because I had been in office for some time. But I said, I 
want to tell you something right out front; I think smoking is bad for 
people's health, and I am not for it.
  About eight of the 10 to 15 tobacco farmers that were there said to 
me after the meeting, they came up to me and said, You know what, we 
don't smoke and we don't want our kids to smoke.
  That aside, Maryland has had one of the most successful tobacco 
buyout programs in America. In my district, the tobacco-growing area of 
Maryland, 90-plus percent, almost 95 percent of

[[Page H9635]]

the farmers have taken the buyout, which means they can no longer ever 
on the property they own have tobacco grown for the purposes of smoking 
tobacco.
  There were literally, as you can imagine, hundreds, and across the 
country there are thousands and thousands of farmers so situated, 
families who have been involved in this process for most of their lives 
and who produce a product, used alternatively, can have extraordinary 
value. But the problem is the research has not been done on it. Why has 
it not been done on it? Because the tobacco product was a very valuable 
product for a bad purpose; that is, smoking. Harmful to health and a 
destroyer of life.
  Very frankly, some of the Farm Bureau came to me and said, Do you 
think we can find an alternative use, because we have a lot of 
expertise in growing this product, and we have facilities to do so. We 
think it can have some beneficial effect. My good friend said he 
thought that was the case. He is correct. There are a lot of good 
things in life that can happen, and his proposition is why this money, 
why here?
  Well, because I represent my district. But I also believe this has 
national implications that if we can get a product from tobacco that is 
useful, and I want to discuss some of them, that will be good for our 
country, good for our economy, good for jobs, and good for people who 
have been displaced from the very lucrative but harmful vocation and 
who are now put to perhaps not having nearly the livelihood they 
expected to have.
  The amendment seeks to eliminate funding for an important research 
project being undertaken at the University of Maryland. One of 
America's extraordinary research institutions, a land grant college 
established in the mid part of the 19th century, it seeks to develop 
safe and beneficial nonsmoking uses for tobacco.
  The Alternative Uses of Tobacco Project has several very important 
objectives. First, we are seeking to take advantage of the many 
beneficial nonsmoking uses of tobacco. Most people would not think of 
the tobacco plant as having a use beyond smoking. They would be wrong. 
I didn't know that either, frankly.
  Tobacco naturally produces high-nutrition proteins, one of the 
highest of any product, industrial raw materials and large amounts of 
biomass which can be used for renewable energy. Think of it. We talk 
about corn, we talk about other things, and we want to talk about 
cellulosic to produce energy. We just passed a farm bill seeking to do 
that. Think if all of the tobacco farms in America could be turned into 
energy producers, an extraordinarily positive contribution to the 
economy of our country.

                              {time}  2045

  Secondly, we're trying to revitalize tobacco-producing communities 
across the southeastern United States by shifting their focus away from 
the traditional use of the crop and generating new markets and new 
industries for beneficial new nonsmoking purposes.
  Unlike Maryland, the Federal buyout, as you know, didn't eliminate 
the growing of tobacco; and in many States that have buyout programs 
they didn't eliminate the use of tobacco for smoking purposes. Maryland 
did. So that if we could give alternative uses for a product and get it 
out of the sale of use for smoking products, what a health benefit that 
would be for America.
  So I suggest that this $400,000 is an extraordinarily good investment 
in health care, in the economy for our people.
  Third, we are attempting to develop new technologies for producing 
leaf proteins. Leaf proteins are as nutritious as milk protein, but, 
unlike other protein sources, they are generally nonallergenic. Tobacco 
may be the largest producer of leaf proteins of any agricultural crop, 
but its historically inadequate processing technologies have limited 
their development.
  Now, let me tell you something. The tobacco companies do not grow 
tobacco. They sell cigarettes. So they do not have an incentive to do 
this. The people who have an incentive to do it are the tobacco 
farmers, but, guess what, the tobacco farmers don't have a lot of 
money. It's the tobacco companies that have a lot of money.
  So the tobacco companies rely on, I'm sure in your State as they do 
in mine, land grant institutions who have focused on agricultural 
research, as does the University of Maryland, as does the Beltsville 
Agricultural Research Center.
  So I have some other things to say, but I think you get the point.
  Mr. Flake is a friend of mine. I have great respect for Mr. Flake. 
Not only that, I think he offers his amendments in a very positive way. 
I've never seen him get mad at anybody. I've never seen him criticize 
anybody. I've never seen him say a cross word to anybody. He sets forth 
what is a correct proposition, that, look, we could save a lot of money 
by not having any of these earmarks and we wouldn't do this research or 
maybe the State could do it or maybe somehow the farmers could get 
together in a cooperative and do it. But they haven't done it and the 
Federal Government has historically invested in long-term progress.
  Now, very frankly, the best example is the space program. The space 
program has made an extraordinary contribution in the creation of jobs 
outside of the space program, and agricultural research colleges have 
done the same for farming and feeding the world. We honored with a gold 
medal a university professor who fed the world, billions.
  So I ask my friends, this is $400,000. We will spend $400,000 in 
Baghdad in the next hour or so. I don't know what the Citizens Against 
Government Waste think of that, and I frankly don't think they think of 
this particular item. I understand that. They think generally we ought 
to stop wasting government money. I agree absolutely.
  And if you think research in a product to turn it to pharmaceutical 
use, if you think that research in a product to turn it to better 
energy production, if you think research in a product that may be 
available to give us better protein production, then I think, my 
friends, Mr. Obey has said, we get the point. So I say this, and I'm 
laughing, this is a serious investment in good things for all people.
  I hope that, notwithstanding the fact that he is my friend, that you 
will reject the gentleman's amendment, and I thank you for the time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from 
Maryland, and I appreciate the tone which this debate has been 
conducted in.
  I heard some new things here that I didn't know before. This was a 
Maryland-initiated buyout for the tobacco industry, a buyout which 
limited the uses of tobacco afterwards. That's great. It should 
probably be the State of Maryland that funds this kind of research 
then, instead of the Federal Government.
  Another thing I heard that I hadn't heard before is I guess we are 
moving toward tobacco-based ethanol or something of some such. My old 
car smokes enough, thank you. I'm not sure that's the way to go, but, 
in any event, there are limits to what you can do. The truth is you can 
make ethanol out of an old boot if you expend enough energy doing it, 
but it doesn't mean that we ought to fund research again and again, 
over and over and over. There are limits to what the taxpayer ought to 
do.
  And let me just say, given that, I mean, we imposed another tax on 
tobacco just a day ago, and I think there are plenty of incentives 
there within the industry, be it the growing side or be it on the 
marketing side or whatever, to find alternative uses for tobacco. I 
think it ought to be left with them and not the Federal taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed 
in House Report 110-290.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H9636]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for the Ruminant 
     Nutrition Consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY) grant.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Cooperative State Research, 
     Education, and Extension Service--Research and Education 
     Activities'' (and the amount specified under such heading for 
     special grants for agricultural research) are hereby reduced 
     by $489,000.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to prohibit funding for an earmark 
for the Ruminant Nutrition Consortium. This earmark would provide 
$489,000 for ruminant livestock production research, rangeland 
integration and other livestock resources.
  A press release issued from this earmark in a previous year described 
it as an effort in the northern plains to further develop beef, dairy 
and sheep finish-feeding, which may lead to more jobs and more value-
added agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, I know a little about cattle nutrition. I spent a lot 
of years on a ranch and a farm; and, in fact, I spent years on what we 
call bloat watch, where we'd sit at the edge of a field and have to 
watch while cattle, being the type of ruminant digestive system that 
they have, might bloat. And you'd have to run and stab the left side 
and hopefully relieve the suffering and relieve the certain death that 
comes.
  I think this is an effort to relieve a little bloat that is here in 
this Agricultural appropriation bill and certainly in this budget.
  There is simply no reason we should continue to fund research like 
this when we have, as mentioned already many times tonight, we have an 
account over at the Department of Agriculture that is for this purpose 
to dispense research dollars based on competition, where there are 
groups that are out there will compete for grants. We've told the 
Department of Agriculture to set up that program, and here we're saying 
it's not good enough. We're going to have that program; and then, in 
addition, we're going to give what essentially is a sole-source 
contract, single bidder. One university or one entity will get this 
earmark grant.
  So it's simply not right.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from South Dakota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset, the 
gentleman from Arizona said this is a sole-source contract to one 
entity and we already have an entity in USDA an agency that would make 
these grants based on competition.
  This is not a sole-source contract. Four universities are involved in 
the consortium, and it's a competitive-based program.
  So my colleague from Arizona's attempting to strike from the bill an 
extremely modest amount of funding for an outstanding program that's 
provided tremendous benefits to ranch families in one of the most 
remote and economically challenged corners of the United States.
  The economy of this area of the country, western North and South 
Dakota and eastern Wyoming and Montana, is probably more dependent on 
animal agriculture than any other region of the country. It's beautiful 
rangeland and beautiful country, for that matter, but it isn't suitable 
to grow much other than grass.
  We have dozens of small, rural communities in that area that rely 
almost completely on the ability of ranchers to raise cattle and sheep 
and bison; and I consider them to be among the best livestock producers 
in the country, given the climate they have to contend with as well.
  This modest program, again funded at $489,000 in this year's bill, is 
a model of what we should be trying to fund in our appropriations 
bills. This program stretches a few dollars a very long way. It targets 
its efforts on addressing specific needs. The results of the program 
benefit all regions of the country and its collaborative effort among 
four highly respected universities: South Dakota State University, 
North Dakota State University, the University of Wyoming and Montana 
State University.
  By distributing grants through a competitive awards process, let me 
repeat, the program is competitively awarded, the consortium promotes 
interstate cooperation and collaboration among ranchers, farmers, 
scientists and educators. Research addresses subject areas that are 
identified as needs by producers living in the target region, which 
means results are directly applicable to those producers; and I'm proud 
of my efforts to secure funding for this program.
  Research funded by this consortium is developing new methods to add 
value to common grain and forage crops through the use of ruminant 
livestock, again cattle, sheep and bison. The projects enhance economic 
return and positively impact the regional environment by integrating 
rangeland, annual crops, and livestock resources.
  Like many, if not all, of my colleagues, I carefully vet the projects 
for which I request funding to ensure that the program requests that I 
make are effective, important, valuable projects. I'm proud to put my 
name on this project and on the handful of other projects that I've 
supported in this bill. I know my State. I make every effort to know 
the needs of the farmers and ranchers I represent and ensure that we 
are spending their tax dollars wisely on programs that get results.
  This is one of those programs, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting it and rejecting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the gentlewoman 
mentioned that this is not a single-source contract or single-bid 
contract. I have the certification letter. It says I'm requesting 
funding for South Dakota State University in Brookings, South Dakota, 
to conduct research into production of environmental aspects of 
ruminant livestock production, et cetera, et cetera.
  What used to be a competitive grant process is no longer with this 
earmark. We do have a competitive grant process at the Department of 
Agriculture. Now, this school may choose to have a competitive grant 
process beyond that, but we're using Federal dollars to give to one 
university to perhaps disburse among other universities.
  If we don't like the process over at the Department of Agriculture, 
we should end it. We should say we're not going to fund that account 
anymore, that billion dollars we're giving you is not being disbursed 
equitably nor wisely. If we believe that, we should tell them. We'd 
save a lot of money and instead contract with others at the local level 
and just give it out.
  But what we're doing here is we're funding both. We're having a 
process over there where a billion dollars is handed out competitively 
with some kind of process, merit-based process, and we're going around 
that and earmarking funds for specific institutions.
  It simply seems wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. May I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from South Dakota has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I will yield the balance of the 
time to the gentleman from California, but let me just say, he can 
point to the certification letter, but this is a consortium. There is a 
lead university, but it's a consortium of four.
  With that, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  None of this money comes to my State or the universities in 
California involved in this consortia, but the State of California and 
other States, including Mr. Flake's own, are very interested in the 
outcome of this. I will tell you why. Because the rangelands

[[Page H9637]]

of America are under great threat; and certainly in those rangelands in 
the rural areas, you raise cattle and sheep and bison, which we don't 
raise in our State.
  But what this grant does, why you ought to be interested in it, is 
that they're learning new ways in which to graze. What they're doing is 
studying the effects of grazing herds of cattle, horses, sheep all 
together, because they eat different kinds of grass, and if you herd 
them essentially, move them on, you can preserve and bring back the 
native grasses, which is what we want to do.
  Our cattlemen are very interested in this process, and this is the 
place to do that study. You get kind of a funny name for some of these 
things like this Ruminant Nutrition Consortium, but, in fact, it's a 
grant program. It is competitive, and the benefits of it are I think 
what keeps America strong. We've got to keep putting money into 
research dollars.

                              {time}  2100

  You know, if this was medical research, you wouldn't be criticizing 
it, but it's agricultural research, and it sounds funny. But, you know, 
you didn't take on my earmark, which was about lettuce and germ plasma. 
That's a pretty funny one, but it's very important if you like lettuce 
and you want to keep America ahead in the lettuce world.
  So striking these few earmarks, by your time, trying to do this, 
fortunately, I think you are a great Member and you get an A for 
effort; but you also get A for 100 percent failure in being able to 
strike earmarks, because these are good earmarks.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, well, I should say I haven't been very 
successful here. I have noted before I have been beaten like a rented 
mule here quite a bit. But I must say the majority of Democrats did 
join me in actually striking an earmark a couple of weeks ago, one 
Member, and I had the occasion just today of one earmark that I had 
planned to strike was stricken by the Member himself before I could 
strike it.
  So there are occasions when the Appropriations Committee, for 
whatever reason, I sympathize with them. They simply don't have the 
time to vet all of these. I would suggest, when you have 410 earmarks 
in one bill like this, you simply don't have a lot of time to vet them.
  I know a little bit about cattle ranching. As I mentioned, I grew up 
on a cattle ranch. The gentleman mentioned the process of moving cattle 
from one cell to another. Actually, we started doing that on the F-Bar 
some 30 years ago and are still doing it to some extent.
  The gentlelady mentioned this is a consortium, four universities, I 
believe, getting these research dollars, but it's earmarked for that 
consortium. That consortium could apply to the Department of 
Agriculture for universities like this. I suppose, cattle have four 
stomachs, four universities, only makes sense, but they can apply 
directly to the Department of Agriculture. They don't have to get 
earmark dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. Is the gentlelady out of time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I too grew up on a farm. I have moved my share of 
cattle. We still have cattle on that farm, but it's in eastern South 
Dakota. It's not nearly as remote as the region that we are talking 
about. There are different types of grasses than the grasses we are 
talking about.
  This is a consortium. I think it's very important we recognize the 
uniqueness of this particular area of the country.
  Mr. FLAKE. I urge adoption of the amendment. We simply cannot afford 
everything. Let's give the taxpayer a break.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-290.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for the Wood Utilization 
     (OR, MS, NC, MN, ME, MI, ID, TN, AK, WV) grant.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Cooperative State Research, 
     Education, and Extension Service--Research and Education 
     Activities'' (and the amount specified under such heading for 
     special grants for agricultural research) are hereby reduced 
     by $6,371,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $6,371,000 and 
reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount from being used to 
research wood utilization.
  This is the second year in a row I have stood to address this 
earmark. It seems that not much has changed in the past year of wood 
utilization research. The committee provided precisely the same amount 
of funding last year, $6,371,000, for a variety of projects around the 
country that frankly seem designed to provide a solution in search of a 
problem.
  This is another example of an earmark that has persisted for years 
that can only be terminated by Congress. The wood utilization program 
has received Federal funds since 1985 and has received more than $90 
million in appropriations.
  The United States is the world's largest producer of lumber and wood 
products used in residential construction and in commercial wood 
products such as furniture and containers.
  The United States is also a leader in the pulp and paper business, 
producing about 34 percent of the world's pulp and 29 percent of the 
world's output in paper and paper board. About 1.3 million people are 
directly employed in the planning, growing, managing, and harvesting of 
trees and the production of wood and paper products in all 50 States.
  The forest industry ranks among the top 10 manufacturing employers in 
about 42 States with an annual payroll of about $60 billion. This is an 
industry that dates back hundreds of years and has shown itself 
remarkably capable to adapt to change. It obviously continues to thrive 
today.
  I sincerely question why the Federal Government needs to involve 
itself in a program that educates students about the utility of wood as 
a renewable resource.
  What happened to the free market? What happened to common sense? I 
think we have had it out there for a while. After 1985, we have been 
doing this same earmark or this same program for the past several 
years, or it has been earmarked for the past several years. I would say 
it's time to reconsider the project.
  I think the taxpayers may want to take us to the woodshed themselves 
for continuing to fund at a price of $6,371,000 this same earmark year 
after year after year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the Flake amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the wood utilization 
consortium is made up of 10 universities in 10 different States around 
the country with varying missions.

[[Page H9638]]

  I am familiar with the program mainly because of the involvement of 
North Carolina State University. NC State's contribution to the 
consortium is focused on wood machining and tooling. The programs help 
develop innovative production methods and use stronger, longer-lasting 
tools which are allowing U.S. manufacturers to maintain domestic 
production and compete in the global economy.
  Such work is critical to support the U.S. furniture and lumber 
industries. North Carolina's furniture industry alone is estimated to 
contribute $10 billion to the economy.
  North Carolina State University's contribution to increased 
manufacturing efficiency and global competitiveness within this major 
industry represents only a small component of the wood utilization 
program. Continued funding is a wise national investment.
  I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from North 
Carolina, who represents the main campus of North Carolina State 
University (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend from Arizona has already made a statement why 
this earmark ought to stay in here. It really is making a difference 
for the industry, and it's employing people. I rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment.
  The funding for this wood utilization grant helps fund the Wood 
Machining and Tooling Research Program, as you have just heard. Part of 
it is really on the campus of NC State University, a land grant 
university. It has been matched more than dollar for dollar, every 
Federal dollar by private dollar.
  This is not a giveaway program but, rather, one that has been 
designed to work to make the Southeastern furniture industry more 
competitive, as you have heard, in the global economy. This research 
program investigates and solves problems related to manufacturing tools 
used in the wood machining and manufacturing operations.
  Other than Wood Machining and Tooling Research Program, there is no 
other Federal research program to support U.S. wood manufacturing and 
tooling companies who are competing with low-wage jobs on the other 
side of the world with other countries. It is only right to invest in 
the industries we have remaining in our rural parts of this country 
when outsourcing these industries overseas has hurt States all across 
America.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield 1 minute to our colleague from 
Maine (Mr. Michaud).
  (Mr. MICHAUD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chairman, I want to give just one example why this 
investment is important to our Nation.
  The Module Ballistic Protection System, developed at the University 
of Maine, is made of light, strong-as-metal wood composite panels that 
are inserted into tents to protect our soldiers over in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. This life-saving technology would not have been possible 
without the initial investment from the wood utilization funding.
  In fact, this funding spurred advances in many different industries. 
It creates jobs and, in some cases, it will save American lives. This 
funding benefits the entire Nation.
  I urge the rejection of the gentleman's amendment.
  I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from Arizona's 
amendment.
  Investment in Wood Utilization Research at these locations including 
the University of Maine supports education and economic development 
across our country.
  The funding encourages students to pursue careers in advanced wood 
science and engineering at a time when international competition in 
these fields is growing. This type of research is important to a 
growing number of industrial applications and to our national economy.
  At U-Maine, every dollar appropriated to the Center generates an 
additional $7 in economic output. The research has promoted important 
advances in fields as diverse and important as biofuels and advanced 
wood composites.
  I want to highlight one program in particular that was born from this 
funding. The Modular Ballistic Protection System, developed at the U-
Maine Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center, is a series of 
lightweight, strong-as-metal, wood composite panels that are inserted 
into tents to protect our soldiers from mortars and other incoming fire 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. This lifesaving technology would not have been 
possible without the initial investment from the Wood Utilization 
funding.
  I appreciate the gentleman's intent but I believe it is misguided. In 
offering these kinds of amendments, the gentleman has frequently asked: 
what is the federal interest?
  Well, in this case, it is clear. This is a project with national 
implications that helps our competitiveness, our industries, and our 
national defense. It is an investment that the federal government 
should be making so that America can lead the way in a variety of 
important R&D fields, create jobs, and in some cases, save American 
lives.
  We do not pick any winners and losers here with this project--in 
fact, we all win with this research. So I urge the rejection of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my 
colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with what my colleagues have 
said previously. I would take it from a slightly different angle. We 
are concerned about value added to American forest products.
  I have watched in the Northwest the development of wood utilization 
research to deal with plywood and particle wood that are formaldehyde-
free. It enables us to be able to provide a superior environmental 
product, adds greater value, protects the public and competes against 
foreign products where they are cutting corners. It wouldn't be 
possible without this type of partnership, from an environmental 
perspective, from an economic perspective, from a research perspective. 
I strongly urge rejection and look at that and suggest people look at 
how the $6 million has been spent in the past.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for this most 
persuasive argument.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to our colleague from Maine (Mr. 
Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Research funded by this program has provided blast-proof wood hybrid 
materials to the Coast Guard and the Army to strengthen their 
facilities. In fact, some wood composites engineered by the University 
of Maine and developed by research conducted under this grant program 
are being used by the Army Corps of Engineers in Iraq, Afghanistan and 
worldwide.
  This funding will allow the University of Maine to continue its 
strong support of traditional wood products production and enhance the 
competitiveness of our domestic industry.
  I strongly oppose this amendment, and I would add simply that I don't 
know of any program that spins off more small businesses than this wood 
composite program at the University of Maine.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we yield back the balance 
of our time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, nobody here is questioning the need for 
research. Every industry does it. Every industry has to do it to 
survive because of competition.
  What I question here is why the taxpayer is spending $6 million every 
year on this same earmark for a $60 billion industry. This money goes 
to universities all over the country, so does research money from paper 
companies that are in the department next door.
  There is research being funded. This is a pittance compared to the 
other research dollars that are being spent.
  Thank goodness, private industry knows that they have to do it. But 
why does a taxpayer have to be on the hook again and again and again 
year after year after year for this same earmark for wood utilization?
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the gentleman from Arizona's amendment to cut funding for 
the USDA grant for Wood Utilization Research.
  For the past 15 years, Michigan State University and other 
universities have used grants for Wood Utilization Research to 
strengthen and improve the United States wood product

[[Page H9639]]

industry. Jointly, these universities have addressed major problems in 
all of the forest regions of the United States. This collaboration has 
provided important advances that have helped to make our wood product 
industry more competitive around the globe, and our forests healthier 
here at home. Specifically, grant funding has been used to expand 
sustainable, environmentally sound forest practices and develop 
renewable wood-based materials.
  The United States wood products industry is fragmented and composed 
of many small firms whose only access to advanced technology is through 
government or university laboratories. A major benefit of the USDA Wood 
Utilization grant has been the flexibility of universities to rapidly 
respond to critical regional or national research needs. In addition, 
the availability of grant funding has leveraged additional funds from 
state and private sources.
  Michigan State University, located in Michigan's 8th District, 
continues to be a leader in this vital research. Today, they are 
performing research on wood materials that will shape the future of 
this industry for years to come. Projects include the conversion of 
wood residuals into biofuels, the development of environmentally safe 
preservative systems to lengthen the life of wood products (thus 
lessening the demand for harvest), the creation of wood materials that 
can substitute petroleum-based plastics, and the utilization of trees 
killed by emerald ash borer. Many of these projects will help reduce 
our nation's dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, create 
manufacturing and research jobs, and further strengthen our wood 
product industry.
  Mr. Chairman, this research grant is critically important not only 
for Michigan State University and my district, but clearly for the 
United States wood product industry and our national energy needs. I 
thank the Committee for funding the grant, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this dangerous amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 110-
290 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Sessions of Texas.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Kingston of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Kingston of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. 
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 2-minute votes.