[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7783-H7792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2997, AGRICULTURE, RURAL 
    DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 609 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 609

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2997) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, except as 
     provided in section 2, no amendment shall be

[[Page H7784]]

     in order except: (1) the amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution; (2) the amendments printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules; (3) not to exceed one of 
     the amendments printed in part C of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Campbell of 
     California or his designee; (4) not to exceed three of the 
     amendments printed in part D of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules if offered by Representative Flake of Arizona or his 
     designee; and (5) not to exceed one of the amendments printed 
     in part E of the report of the Committee on Rules if offered 
     by Representative Hensarling of Texas or his designee. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only by a Member designated in 
     the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
     for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI and except that an amendment printed in part B 
     through E of the report of the Committee on Rules may be 
     offered only at the appropriate point in the reading. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. In the case of 
     sundry amendments reported from the Committee, the question 
     of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros and 
     without division of the question. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  After consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro 
     forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate, which 
     shall be controlled by the proponent.
       Sec. 3.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Appropriations or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 2997, the Chair may 
     reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
     under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 609 
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 
425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of 
section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974. The gentleman has met the threshold burden to 
identify the specific language in the resolution on which the point of 
order is predicated. Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the 
question of consideration.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
  After the debate the Chair will put the question of consideration, to 
wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of 
concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in here. 
I raise a point of order because it's the only vehicle we've got to 
actually talk about this rule and this bill and how we are being denied 
the ability to actually offer the amendments that we would like to, to 
illuminate what's actually in this bill and how this is a break again 
from the hallmark and tradition of this House, which is to allow open 
debate on appropriation bills.
  We've heard a lot about the sweeping reforms, particularly on 
earmarks, since 2007. Some of these reforms are good. Some of them--
like requiring Members to put their names next to earmarks, requiring 
them to sign a certification letter that they have no financial 
interest in the earmark--are good reforms. They are reforms that many 
of us in this body have wanted for a long time. But we haven't drained 
the swamp. All we've done is we now know the depth of the mud that 
we're wading in, and we're simply not able to hold those accountable 
who should be held accountable. We have the transparency that we need, 
some of it, most of it; but with that transparency should come 
accountability. When you're denied the ability to offer amendments on 
the floor or are restricted in the number that you can offer, then you 
aren't able to use that transparency to any good effect.
  In fiscal year 2007 during the appropriations process, I was able to 
offer 40 earmark limitation amendments. These were bipartisan, 
including eight to the Agriculture appropriations bill. In fiscal year 
2008 I offered nearly 50 bipartisan amendments, including five to the 
Ag appropriations bill. Now last year only one appropriations bill even 
moved through the House under regular order, the Military Construction-
VA appropriations bill. This bill was jammed together with a so-called 
mini-bus with the Homeland Security bill and the Defense bill. This 
came to the House under a closed rule. There were no amendments allowed 
at all. The remaining bills were jammed into a must-pass omnibus bill 
earlier this year. Only a handful of those were even reported out of 
committee. That meant that there were over 7,000 earmarks worth more 
than $8 billion air-dropped into this bill and not one limitation 
amendment, not one striking amendment, really not any amendments of any 
kind were even allowed on that bill. So we went through a whole year 
basically with virtually no amendments offered at all where these 
bills, these appropriations bills weren't even vetted.
  So now we come to this year, and we're told we're going to get back 
to regular order, we're going to move appropriations bills one at a 
time and give Members the opportunity to offer limitation amendments. 
And what do we do? We close them down. The Rules Committee says, Okay, 
you've offered 12 amendments, maybe you can offer three of those 
amendments--you choose--on the floor. That's not real accountability. 
That's not the tradition of this House. That's not an open rule.
  And when you see things like this--this is in Roll Call today--The 
Justice Department this week filed criminal charges against a defense 
contractor who has received millions of dollars worth of earmarks. 
Today's Roll Call. Today's Hill--Kickback charges against a defense 
contractor are putting people in this body, organizations here, in a 
hard position on whether to return campaign contributions back to the 
contractor charged with accepting kickbacks in return for earmarked 
dollars. And yet we're going to be considering the Defense 
appropriation bill later this month that will contain probably more 
than 1,000 earmarks from this body, most of them earmarks to for-profit 
companies, most of which will have executives who turn around and make 
campaign contributions to the Members who secured the earmarks for 
them.
  Yet I would submit that the purpose of what we're going through now 
through these appropriation bills is to basically ready this body for 
the Defense appropriation bill, where people will be used to not 
offering amendments. Then where we would be able to illuminate a little 
bit on the floor at least where these earmarks are going, is it proper 
for this earmark to go to a for-profit company whose executives turn 
around and make campaign contributions to the Member who secured that 
earmark for them? Basically Members getting earmarks for their campaign 
contributors. Instead of being able to stand up and illuminate that, 
we'll likely be restricted to one or two amendments, or maybe none. 
That's what we're going through right now, and that's what it's going 
to lead to.
  Now people say that nobody pays attention to process outside of this 
body or outside of this town. That's largely true. It's tough to score 
political points saying, The majority party simply won't allow 
amendments offered on the floor. People typically don't pay attention 
to bad process. But bad process always begets bad results or bad 
policy. We learned it on this side. When you hold a vote open for 3 
hours--like we did the prescription drug bill vote--

[[Page H7785]]

and twist arms, you get a bad result. We added about $11 trillion in 
unfunded liabilities for future generations. We had several of those, 
which I think on this side we're probably not proud of. But I can tell 
you, we always held appropriation bills up, though, and allowed open 
rules and allowed Members to offer amendments even though it might have 
been uncomfortable for Members to hear what was being brought to the 
floor. A departure from that means that we're going to have bad 
results. We've seen that in the last year or so. When we've restricted 
the ability of Members to actually offer results, then we have Justice 
Department investigations because the proper vetting was not done.
  Now I would wish--I think all of us would wish--that some vetting 
would be done in the Appropriations Committee, but sadly it hasn't been 
done. The chairman of the committee has said many times that they 
simply don't have the time nor the resources to vet all of these 
earmark requests, and I believe them. But if that is the case, the 
answer isn't to shut the process down. The answer is, don't bring the 
bill to the floor with so many earmarks in it. But here instead of 
doing that, we're saying, ``All right, we can't vet these earmarks, so 
we're simply going to close our eyes and pretend that these earmarks 
aren't there and not allow anybody to tell anybody that they're there. 
Let's not allow anybody to come to the floor and offer them.'' That is 
a bad process which leads to bad results.
  Now make no mistake, as I mentioned, what we're going through now--I 
don't think the majority party or the minority party is so much 
concerned about how many amendments are offered to the Agriculture bill 
as they are about setting a precedent for what might come later with 
the Defense appropriation bill. Remember, that is the important one 
with regard to earmarks for campaign contributors. If we allow a 
process to develop here where we shield Members and shield earmarks by 
not allowing Members to challenge them on the floor, then we will get 
more headlines like this one in the paper today, headlines that we see 
over and over and over again which have led to investigations by the 
Justice Department, which have led finally to our own Ethics Committee, 
finally, hopefully having launched its own investigation. It is 
unbelievable to me that we have this going on on the outside, and yet 
we will still go through a process where we allow Members of Congress 
here to earmark for their campaign contributors. And instead of 
allowing Members to come to the floor and actually challenge some of 
those, we shut down the process so they can't. We close the rule so 
very few earmark amendments, limitation amendments, are even allowed.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just so there's no confusion, I want to remind my 
colleagues that we are dealing with the Agriculture appropriations bill 
and not the Defense appropriations bill or any other appropriations 
bill. This is the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, technically this point of order is about whether or not 
to consider this rule and ultimately the underlying bill. In reality, 
it's about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate 
and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation 
itself.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill that we want to consider here is a 
bill that provides food and nutrition to some of the most desperate 
people in this country. It's a bill that will provide much-needed help 
to farmers in rural areas all across this country. This is an important 
bill for a number of reasons, and I think it's wrong to try to delay 
this bill or block this legislation from coming to the floor. I hope my 
colleagues will vote ``yes'' so that we can consider this important 
legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural 
obstructionist motion.
  Those who oppose this bill can vote against it on final passage. We 
must consider this rule, and we must pass this legislation today. Mr. 
Speaker, I have the right to close; but in the end I will urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I will talk specifically about the 
Ag appropriations bill. This bill has hundreds and hundreds of earmarks 
in it. I think there are maybe half a dozen total earmark limitation 
amendments that are allowed under this rule. That's simply not 
sufficient, Mr. Speaker. That's not sufficient. We should be allowing 
more. I understand the other side wants to hide the fact that 64 
percent of the earmarks in this legislation are going to just 25 
percent of the body, that the Appropriations Committee, which makes up 
just under 14 percent of this body, actually comes away with 56 percent 
of the earmarks.
  I understand that those who are in charge of this legislation don't 
want that to be known, but it's still not right to limit the number of 
amendments that can be offered and to limit the time. So I would plead 
to not go forward with consideration of this bill under this rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the tactics that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are employing right now to try 
to delay and obstruct this legislation from moving forward. But, as I 
said, this legislation is important. It's important to a lot of people. 
The food stamp program is funded in this bill, WIC, a lot of important 
nutrition programs, plus a lot of important aid to farmers who are 
struggling in this tough economy. This is an important piece of 
legislation.
  Again, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to 
consider so we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation 
today. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and enough of these 
obstructionist tactics.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 185, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 489]

                               YEAS--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)

[[Page H7786]]


     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Napolitano
     Sestak
     Wittman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1652

  Messrs. CALVERT, MACK, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. EHLERS and Mrs. EMERSON 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ and Ms. CASTOR of Florida changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 489, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr. 
Foxx. All time yielded for consideration of this rule is for debate 
only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 609 will allow this body to consider H.R. 2997, the 
Fiscal Year 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill that deserves the support of every 
single Member in this body.
  The chairwoman, Rosa DeLauro, Ranking Member Jack Kingston, the 
subcommittee members and their staffs worked tirelessly to craft a bill 
that provides critical funding for the needs of rural America, 
conservation programs and two areas that are very important to me, 
domestic and international food nutrition.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect. There are programs that I 
think should be funded at higher levels and other programs that should 
be reduced. Other colleagues undoubtedly have different priorities. But 
I believe that this bill is a solid, thoughtful, good compromise.
  The FY 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act makes three major 
investments. It protects Americans' public health with increases in 
food safety and funding for the Food and Drug Administration. It 
delivers critical funding and support for domestic and international 
food and nutrition programs, and it provides important assistance for 
rural America by providing funds for rural development, animal and 
plant health, broadband service, and conservation programs.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides $22.9 billion for these critical 
programs. I should point out, less than President Obama's budget 
request.
  With the economic crisis facing families across this Nation, the 
funding for rural America is more important today than ever. The rural 
development programs will create real opportunities for economic growth 
and development in small communities throughout our country. There is 
funding for rural housing, investments in rural businesses, and support 
for new community facility infrastructure. The funding for the Farm 
Service Agency and agriculture research is of vital importance as our 
farmers and ranchers continue to adapt their businesses into the 21st-
century economy.
  I particularly want to thank Chairwoman DeLauro for including 
critical funding for the eradication of the Asian long-horned beetle. 
This devastating insect has infiltrated my hometown of Worcester, 
Massachusetts, and surrounding towns. Because there is no natural 
predator, the only way to eradicate the insect is to eliminate the 
trees where they live. If this infestation is not stopped, you could 
devastate the hard wood forest of New England. This is an expensive but 
critically important endeavor and this bill provides significant 
funding for that effort.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have seen over the past few years, America's food 
supply is simply not as safe as it should be. We have seen salmonella 
and E. coli outbreaks in various parts of this country. And the 
continuing importation of food from around the world means we need to 
have a vigilant and dedicated effort to protect our food supply from 
contamination.
  This bill provides funding specifically for the inspection of meat, 
poultry and egg products. There is also critical funding to improve the 
safety of domestic and imported food and medical products. These 
programs alone make this bill worth supporting, and I commend 
Chairwoman DeLauro for her steadfast support of this work.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, and of great importance to me, are the programs 
that provide food and nutrition to millions of people here at home and 
around the world. This bill provides significant funding for SNAP, 
formerly called food stamps; for WIC, the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program and International Food Aid, both P.L. 480 title II and the 
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition program.
  I have long believed, Mr. Speaker, that hunger here at home and 
around the world is a political condition, that we have the resources 
to end hunger; but we simply haven't mustered the political will to do 
so. This bill is a major step forward in that fight to end hunger.
  Domestically, this bill fully funds the Women, Infants and Children, 
or WIC, program. This is a vital program that

[[Page H7787]]

provides healthy and nutritious food to pregnant mothers and their 
newborn children. The funding in this bill will help over 700,000 more 
women, infants, and children. That means over 10 million people will 
now be able to participate in this important program.
  The bill also provides funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program, something the Bush administration never thought fit to fund, 
but which actually provides nutritious food to over 500,000 low-income 
women, infants and children and elderly people who struggle with high 
food costs. This bill also expands the CSFP participation into six 
States: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Delaware, Utah, New Jersey and Georgia.
  The SNAP program, authorized in the farm bill, is funded through the 
FY2010 Agriculture Appropriations bill. This is one of the most 
important safety programs in the country. Low- and middle-income 
families who struggle to put food on their tables are able to turn to 
the SNAP program for help.
  There are over 36 million people in this country who go without food 
during the year. Too often, families are forced to choose between rent, 
utilities, and food. SNAP allows families to receive funding so they 
can buy the food they normally wouldn't be able to afford.
  Mr. Speaker, healthy, nutritious food is a right, not a privilege. 
The notion that we should turn our backs on people who cannot afford it 
is unfathomable. Millions of Americans needed this help even before the 
economic downturn.
  Today, the number of hungry Americans will undoubtedly be higher than 
last year; and without SNAP, millions of Americans would go to bed 
hungry every day. I am proud of the program, and I congratulate the 
Speaker of the House and Chairwoman DeLauro in their support for this 
and other anti-hunger efforts.
  Finally, I am pleased that there is a significant investment in the 
International Food Aid provisions funded in this bill. Many of my 
colleagues may not know that International Food Aid is funded in the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1700

  But this bill thanks the leadership of Chairwoman DeLauro, increases 
funding for P.L. 480 title II by $464 million for a total of $1.69 
billion.
  This bill also increases funding for the McGovern-Dole program, 
increasing the total to $199.5 million. Based on our Nation's school 
meal program, the McGovern-Dole program provides food to millions of 
hungry kids at school, allowing children to receive both food and an 
education.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It funds the priorities of our 
Nation and it deserves our support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time. While we often disagree on issues, it is clear 
that he is passionate about this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I come before you today deeply concerned about the 
closed rule we have before us. Throughout this appropriations season, 
the Democrat majority has taken unprecedented steps to silence both the 
minority and their own Democrat colleagues by offering all 
appropriations bills under closed rules. This has consistently 
eliminated the ability of Members to speak up for how their 
constituents believe their money should be spent.
  But today marks a record in modern history. Today, the Democrat 
majority has gone even further by surpassing the number of restrictive 
rules ever offered during appropriations season in the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, when Republicans were in the majority, the most regular 
appropriations bills considered under a restrictive rule in any single 
season was four in 1997 which was before my colleague, Mr. Dreier, was 
the chairman. Today, with the addition of this rule, the Democrat 
majority has exceeded that modern record.
  After promising the American people during campaign season that this 
would be the most open and honest Congress in history, Speaker Pelosi 
has gone back on her word in the name of appropriations season by 
making this the most closed and restrictive Congress in history.
  Instead of having their ideas heard, the American people are being 
silenced with Speaker Pelosi's justification that, We won the election, 
so we decide.
  As my colleagues have expressed during the past four appropriations 
debates this season, bringing appropriations bills to the floor under a 
closed rule is unprecedented. It does an injustice to both Republicans 
and Democrats who want to have the opportunity to offer amendments and 
participate in debate with their colleagues over pressing issues of our 
time.
  By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has cut off the 
minority and their own colleagues from having any input in the 
legislative process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the Chair of the Agriculture Subcommittee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and appreciate him 
yielding me this time.
  I want to say thank you to the ranking member of the subcommittee, 
Mr. Kingston, for his collaboration and input over the last few months. 
Our staffs have worked together effectively, and together we have 
crafted what I believe to be a very strong bipartisan bill.
  In addition, I think this Agriculture-FDA Appropriations bill is a 
smarter, better piece of legislation thanks to the hard work of both 
the subcommittee and the full committee. We have looked at many, many 
different amendments that have come up over the course of the process 
of writing the bill, and together we have honed it into some very 
effective and worthy legislation.
  We have had an open process throughout the subcommittee and committee 
markups. I believe this rule sets in motion what has been a fair 
process. I understand that close to 100 amendments were submitted to 
the committee. Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have had an opportunity to speak their minds on these issues and have 
their amendments considered and made in order.
  As it has in recent years, the bill focuses on several key areas, 
such as: protecting public health; bolstering food nutrition; investing 
in rural communities; supporting agricultural research; strengthening 
animal health and marketing programs; and conserving our natural 
resources.
  The bill provides for $22.9 billion in funding, an 11 percent 
increase over the 2009 levels, the vast majority of which went toward 
three program areas: the WIC program, FDA, and International Food Aid. 
Additionally, in order to make these important investments and use the 
resources available to it wisely, the bill proposes a number of cuts 
totaling more than $735 million.
  We protect the public health by providing a substantial increase for 
the Food and Drug Administration, almost $373 million, 15 percent above 
2009, in an effort to hire additional inspectors and conduct more food 
and medical products inspection.
  In addition, the bill provides over $1 billion for the Food, Safety 
and Inspection Service at the USDA.
  Conservation. We know that conserving our natural resources, cleaner 
water, reduced soil erosion and more wildlife habitat is critical. The 
bill makes a significant investment in USDA's natural resource 
conservation programs by appropriating $980 million.
  The bill rejects the administration's cuts to the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service's farm bill conservation programs, including the 
Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, 
and the Wildlife Incentives Program.
  In addition, the bill restores funding for other valuable programs, 
including the Resource Conservation and Development Program, and the 
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program as well.
  With regard to nutrition, to help those who are hit hardest by the 
economic crisis, the bill provides $681 million, a 10 percent increase 
for WIC, to serve our Nation's vulnerable populations and to support 
participation of 10.1 million people. The bill also includes record 
funding of $180 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, or 
CSFP, and expands assistance to six new States: Arkansas,

[[Page H7788]]

Oklahoma, Delaware, Utah, New Jersey, and Georgia.
  International Food Aid. The bill expands America's traditional 
commitment to International Food Aid by providing an increase of $464 
million, a 27 percent increase, to P.L. 480, the United States' primary 
International Food Aid program. We also provided an additional $99.5 
million to the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program, doubling that number from 2009.

  In terms of rural development, the bill creates opportunities for 
growth and development of the Nation's small town economies. It 
increases funding for water and wastewater infrastructure by $73 
million. There is $8.7 billion for housing, $541 million for community 
facilities, and $9.3 billion for the rural utility programs.
  Increased funding for agriculture. There are significant investments 
in agriculture research: $1.2 billion for the Agricultural Research 
Service and $1.2 billion for the Cooperative State Research, Education 
and Extension Service. That funding increases the opportunity for key 
programs such as the Hatch Act, Evans-Allen, the new competitive 
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, Smith Lever, the 1890 
programs, and the Veterinary Medical Services Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. DeLAURO. With the continued volatility in the futures markets, 
the bill provides the administration's request for the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, $160.6 million, $14.6 million over 2009.
  Finally, the bill includes language which has been carried since 
fiscal year 2008 which prohibits the use of funds in the bill to 
establish or implement a rule allowing the importation of processed 
poultry products from China. When USDA determined that the Chinese food 
system was ``equivalent'' to ours, it used a flawed process in making 
that determination and placed trade considerations above public health. 
Recognizing that, as well as the many problems that have been 
identified with the Chinese food safety system, it is important that 
the language remain in the bill.
  In closing, I thank the Rules Committee for considering this 
important bill. I am proud of the work we have done. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Grandfather community 
for yielding me the time, and appreciate her fine service to the Rules 
Committee.
  Sadly, she is on the minority side presiding over another very, very 
sad day for Democrats and Republicans and the American people. Mr. 
Speaker, if we pass this rule today, we will again set a record. The 
record we will be setting is the largest number of restrictive rules 
for consideration of appropriations in the history of the Republic.
  Now, in the past we have had restrictive rules that have come about 
after an open amendment has begun on the floor, and the Rules Committee 
has taken action. In 1997 it happened on four occasions, and we 
ultimately did in fact put into place restrictive rules.
  This is the fifth rule for consideration of an appropriations bill. 
And so by virtue of the action that I suspect this House will take, we 
have to remember that the rights of the American people, not the rights 
of Republicans, the rights of the American people, Democrats and 
Republicans, all are being subverted with this process that is being 
put into place. In fact, it is a sad day because by virtue of taking 
this action, Mr. Speaker, what is happening is we are now setting the 
new norm. The new norm is a restrictive process shutting down the 
rights of Democrats and Republicans from having an opportunity to amend 
appropriations bills.
  What I have here is a copy of the House Rules and Manual. And 
tragically, tragically as we look at this appropriations process, our 
colleagues are going to, 10 or 20 years from now, be looking at the 
Rules and Manual and the moniker ``open rule'' will be little more than 
a footnote in the history of this institution based on the pattern we 
have set forward.
  I know that is all inside baseball, but the fact of the matter is it 
comes down to the effort being made by the majority to not only shut 
out Members of their own party, Republicans, but what is happening is 
we are preventing Members from having an opportunity to bring about any 
kind of reduction in spending. We know, with what we have seen under 
the actions of this Congress, what has happened, we spend too much, we 
tax too much, and we borrow too much. One of the things that has been 
great about the appropriations amendment process in the past has been 
simply that Democrats and Republicans could stand up and offer germane 
amendments that could bring about reductions in spending.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) has consistently gone up to the 
House Rules Committee, made an attempt to bring about some kind of 
opportunity for spending reduction. He has had very few opportunities 
to do that. It is denied again in this rule that is before us.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, again it is a very unfortunate thing that when 
you look at the appropriations bills and see that the bill that we are 
considering up in the Rules Committee right now, the Foreign Operations 
bill, has a 33 percent increase. The Interior bill, a 17 percent 
increase. This Agriculture bill that we are considering the rule on 
right now, a nearly 12 percent spending increase.
  Now the American people have sent a very clear message: They want to 
make sure they keep their jobs. They don't want to lose their 
businesses. They don't want to lose their homes. And they were promised 
by President Obama that if we passed a $787 billion stimulus bill, that 
the unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. Well, it is now 9.5 
percent, and so I think the message may be getting through to some 
people who heretofore may have been supportive of an increase in 
spending, that maybe that is not the best way. And so I think Democrats 
and Republicans alike may want to have an opportunity to bring about 
some kind of reduction in these 17 percent increases, the 11 to 12 
percent increases, the 33 percent increases, when they in their family 
budgets are trying to hold onto their jobs. And obviously, if they have 
lost their jobs or homes, they are faced with tremendous reductions in 
their own personal budgets.
  We recognize there is a proper role for the Federal Government. 
Spending needs to take place, but we should not in any way be 
continuing down the road that we are, denying Democrats and Republicans 
an opportunity to bring about even the most modest of spending cuts.
  I think of our friend, Mr. Broun from Georgia, who regularly comes 
before us to offer a one-half of 1 percent cut in appropriations 
spending, and we deny him through this process, which is now 
unprecedented, never been done before in the 220-year history of the 
country, denied an opportunity to do just that.

                              {time}  1715

  And so, again, Mr. Speaker, I hope very much that we will follow the 
direction that Ms. Foxx is providing us in voting ``no'' on this rule 
so that we can come back and have what has been the tradition up until 
this process, and that is an open, free, and fair debate so that 
Democrats and Republicans and, through their elected representatives, 
the American people can finally be heard.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to submit into the Record the Statement of 
Administration Policy on this bill in which the Obama administration 
strongly supports this bill.
         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                     Washington, DC, July 7, 2009.

                             (House Rules)

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       H.R. 2997--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 
                        (Rep. Obey, D-Wisconsin)

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     2997, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010.
       A strong, vibrant rural America is central to our country's 
     future. The bill, as reported by the committee, makes 
     important investments in infrastructure so economic progress 
     does not bypass rural communities. The legislation provides 
     the resources necessary to keep our food and our medicines 
     safe and reliable. It provides critical support for farmers 
     to continue the nation's leading role in feeding the world. 
     This legislation also addresses chronic problems facing 
     Americans, including poverty and nutrition and housing. It 
     invests dollars in rural America for the benefit of all 
     Americans.
       In addition, the legislation responds to the President's 
     call for investments in programs

[[Page H7789]]

     that work while ending programs that do not. This legislation 
     gives priority to merit-based funding in critical 
     infrastructure programs. The Administration urges the 
     Congress to continue to apply high standards to funding 
     decisions so as to shape fiscally responsible policies that 
     provide solid returns on the taxpayers' investments.
       The Administration would like to take this opportunity to 
     share additional views regarding the Committee's version of 
     the bill.


                        Administration Priorities

       Expand Broadband Access. The Administration appreciates the 
     Committee's support for the President's goal of increasing 
     access to broadband. However, the President's request 
     provided an increase in loan funding which the Committee 
     moves into grants, resulting in a decrease in loan support of 
     $132 million. This reduction will slow expansion of broadband 
     into rural America.
       Rural Revitalization. The FY 2010 Budget requested an 
     increase of $70 million for rural revitalization grants. The 
     Administration is disappointed that the Committee provides 
     less than $10 million of the requested increase, including no 
     increase for Secondary and Post-Secondary Education, 
     Institution Challenge Grants, or the Quality of Life Program.
       Renewable Energy. The Administration appreciates the 
     support the Committee has provided to the United States 
     Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Business programs. 
     However, the Administration urges the Congress to fund the 
     Rural Energy for America program at the full requested 
     amount. This program is necessary in promoting energy 
     efficiency and renewable energy in rural communities.
       Efficiencies and Cost-Saving Proposals. The Administration 
     appreciates the Committee's support for some of the 
     President's initiatives to terminate or reduce USDA programs 
     that have outlived their usefulness, such as public broadcast 
     grants to help the digital conversion, or that are 
     duplicative of other USDA programs, such as high-cost energy 
     grants. The Administration encourages the Congress to 
     reconsider other proposals made by the Administration that 
     would better target scarce resources and eliminate 
     duplicative programs.


                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       The Administration is concerned with sections 723 and 724 
     of the bill which deal with food safety issues. The 
     Administration would like to work with the Congress to 
     address the issues raised by the Committee in a manner that 
     would protect the Nation's food supply and be consistent with 
     our international obligations.


                      Food and Nutrition Services

       The Administration is pleased with the Committee's support 
     for strengthening nutrition assistance programs by including 
     funding for food banks, community-based food providers, fully 
     funding WIC, and by supporting a pilot initiative to help 
     increase elderly participation in the Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program.


                          Farm Service Agency

       The Administration appreciates that the Committee provides 
     full funding to begin modernization of the Farm Service 
     Agency's information technology network. Once completed, the 
     multi-year stabilization and modernization plan, dubbed 
     ``MIDAS,'' will allow the agency to provide program benefits 
     in a more efficient, accurate, and responsive manner.


                           Rural Development

       The Administration appreciates that the Committee funds the 
     majority of Rural Development at the President's requested 
     levels. However, funding for the Rental Assistance Grants 
     falls $77 million short of the estimate needed to renew the 
     expiring rental assistance contracts expected in FY 2010. The 
     Administration urges the Congress to provide the full request 
     of $1.1 billion, which will continue the support of rents for 
     USDA-financed properties on behalf of the tenants who receive 
     subsidized rent.


                   Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

       The Administration appreciates that the Committee provides 
     the request to strengthen the FDA's efforts to make food and 
     medical products safer. This funding will allow FDA to work 
     with domestic and foreign industry to develop new control 
     measures for all levels of the supply chain, improve and 
     increase risk-based inspections, and respond more effectively 
     with rapid and targeted product tracing when problems do 
     occur.


                        Constitutional Concerns

       Consistent with the Executive Branch's long-standing views 
     regarding section 713, the Administration notes that section 
     713 raises constitutional concerns under the Recommendations 
     Clause and should be eliminated.

  I will also point out that the bill that has been reported by the 
Appropriations Committee is less in terms of spending than what the 
Obama administration originally requested.
  I would also say, and I want to say this very strongly, that I 
support the increases in spending in this bill because they're mostly 
in two areas, food safety and food security, making sure that the food 
that people buy in supermarkets is safe and making sure that people in 
this country who are hungry because of this lousy economic situation 
can have enough to eat, can put food on the table for their families.
  We have a terrible situation in this country where the number of 
hungry people is in the tens of millions, and we can't just walk away 
from that. And my colleague talks about across-the-board cuts. Across-
the-board cuts that make no sense and don't discriminate as to where 
they're going to cut means you're going to cut programs for food and 
nutrition that will literally take the food out of the mouths of hungry 
children. I don't want to do that.
  This is a good bill. It has been worked on, I think, with great 
effort by both Democrats and Republicans, and I strongly support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina.
  It's interesting that the debate is about the bill and not the rule 
itself. My colleagues on the other side continue to fail to defend 
their idea that we ought to have a closed rule in this process and that 
the amendments that would make this bill better are somehow trivial and 
shouldn't be debated on this floor. One of those amendments that I 
offered would have actually had an impact on the spending.
  My colleague from California talked about the opportunity to reduce 
spending in these bills. The theater, or the fiction that is associated 
with this process, Mr. Speaker, is that we will walk through some 
amendments later on to reduce spending in this bill. Should those pass, 
should 218 of us say we disagree with the hard work that the 
Appropriations Committee has done and want to reduce that spending, as 
we did with the $200,000 bicycle program recently at the end of June, 
that money still gets spent, Mr. Speaker. That money goes into the 
slush fund that allows the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to 
spend it in conference on deals that he wants to do, on rewards that he 
wants to make available to folks who have toed the line on the other 
side of the aisle.
  The amendment that I would have proposed would have said that if 218 
of us come to this floor and disagree with a particular provision in 
the bill that the Appropriations Committee has done, that money 
wouldn't get spent; that money would actually reduce the deficit. My 
colleagues on the other side are frightful of that issue because 
they're afraid, like on the $200,000 with the bicycle program, that the 
will of this Congress may be that we disagree with the appropriations 
process.
  The Appropriations Committee does yeoman's work. They have a hard job 
to do in ferreting out priorities on spending. It's a job that I do not 
aspire to, but they should just get one bite at that apple. And my 
amendment would have simply said, Appropriations Committee, do the best 
work you can, bring that product to this floor, then allow the 435 of 
us, the rest of us who aren't on the Appropriations Committee, to have 
our say, to have the debate, to have the conversation about whether or 
not something is valid. And then if 218 of us disagree with the 
priorities that the appropriations process has set on this Ag spending, 
then that money simply would not be spent, they will not get a second 
bite at that apple.
  But the Rules Committee, in their infinite wisdom, has said no, 
that's too complicated, that's too hard for this body to consider. And 
so, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this rule because it is flawed on its face.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman, my good friend from Texas, said he wants to talk about 
process and procedure, so let's talk about process and procedure.
  The amendment he brought before the Rules Committee was a violation 
of the House rules. Even under a complete open rule on the House floor, 
it would have been subject to a point of order because it was 
legislating on an appropriations bill. So you want to talk about 
process, we'll talk about process. The gentleman's amendment would have 
been not in order under any process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to our colleague from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).

[[Page H7790]]

  (Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we have heard of the problems 
with the rule, but that's not the thing that really bothers me. What 
bothers me is how much money we're spending.
  Since last October, this is what we've spent: $700 billion for TARP; 
$70.3 billion for CHIP; $1.16 trillion, that includes the interest, for 
the stimulus bill; $625 billion, which includes interest, for the 
omnibus bill; $125 billion for the war supplemental. The American 
people are struggling right now because of the economy, and we're 
spending money like it's going out of style.
  This bill that we're talking about right now under this rule is going 
to have a $2.4 billion increase over last year. That's 12 percent. And 
if you compare that to fiscal year 2008, the budget that the programs 
under this bill operated under until passage of the omnibus in 
February, it's $4.8 billion more, or a 27 percent increase. And then 
they've also added $7.9 billion of emergency designated spending during 
the current fiscal year. Where in the world are we going to get this 
money?
  The American people are starting to realize that there is going to be 
very high inflation down the road because we can't pay for this stuff, 
so they're printing this money down at the Treasury Department. And 
when you print more money and it's chasing the same amount of goods and 
services, you're going to have inflation, and it's going to be high 
inflation. We had it in the early eighties when it was 14 percent, and 
they had to raise interest rates to 21 percent to stop the inflationary 
trend. And that is what's going to happen again if we don't get control 
of the spending.
  This is the wrong approach. We need to cut spending instead of keep 
blowing this money.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to our 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill contains an 
unnecessary and, I think, counterproductive provision banning the 
importation of poultry from China. The provision has no food safety 
basis but puts at risk American jobs and puts at risk at least $350 
million of American poultry sales to China that that country will 
reportedly block in retaliation.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) offered an amendment to 
strike this dangerous provision, but the majority refused, 
unfortunately, to make it in order. This provision will effectively 
close off a huge export market for our farmers while leaving unchanged 
the amount of poultry we import from China--zero, by the way--because 
of our already strong food safety protections.
  Even America's poultry industry doesn't support this provision. Even 
those who would benefit, supposedly, don't support this provision. I 
would like to submit for the Record a letter from a wide range of 
associations opposed to this language because of the impact here on 
American jobs. The White House has registered concerns as well with the 
provision.
  I support science-based oversight of food safety, but this provision 
will backfire. It will hurt American farmers without any impact on food 
safety. At a time when our country is struggling with the economy, this 
Congress taking actions that hurt American jobs and hurt American 
farmers is exactly the wrong way to go. This provision should be left 
out of the final bill.

                                                   April 30, 2009.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     President, United States of America, The White House, 
         Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to oppose 
     any provisions in the annual appropriations bills that may be 
     inconsistent with our trade obligations under the provisions 
     of World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. In particular, 
     we urge your Administration to actively oppose a provision 
     that would bar implementation of a U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 
     regulation governing the importation of cooked poultry 
     products from China. We respectfully request that your 
     Administration work with Congress to amend the Omnibus 
     Appropriations Act of 2009 to eliminate the current 
     application of this provision and to help prevent its 
     inclusion in future Appropriations measures.
       We agree that the U.S. Government must effectively regulate 
     the safety and quality of food products sold in this country. 
     However, to maintain the effectiveness and integrity of the 
     food safety system, such regulations must be based on sound 
     science and an appropriate risk assessment. Laws and 
     regulations must also be crafted such that the U.S. does not 
     ignore its international trade obligations--obligations that 
     the U.S. Government has helped to develop and in particular, 
     to prevent other countries from adopting protectionist, non-
     science based measures against U.S. food and agriculture 
     exports under the guise of food safety. At a time when U.S. 
     producers are seeking to sell their goods and services abroad 
     during a difficult global economic crisis, it is vital that 
     we uphold our trade obligations, lest we find access to vital 
     overseas markets cut off to American products.
       Section 727 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 
     forbids funds from being used to ``establish or implement a 
     rule allowing poultry products to be imported into the U.S. 
     from the People's Republic of China.'' Similar provisions 
     have been included in annual appropriations since FSIS issued 
     a final rule on cooked chicken imports from China in 2006 and 
     another prohibition is to be proposed for the bill for Fiscal 
     Year 2010.
       Section 727 and its predecessors effectively bar FSIS from 
     conducting a necessary and appropriate risk assessment on 
     whether imports of cooked chicken from China pose any risk to 
     American consumers. Because the provision specifically 
     targets imports from only one country, it conflicts with the 
     U.S. obligation to treat trading partners equally. Indeed, 
     the People's Republic of China has already filed a dispute 
     settlement case against the U.S. at the WTO on this matter.
       If there are concerns about the safety of cooked chicken 
     imports from China--and we should note that this includes 
     poultry that originates in the U.S.--they should be addressed 
     through sound science in the regulatory channels, not through 
     ad hoc legislation or appropriations bills. Section 727, 
     however, precludes scientific analysis from being conducted, 
     therefore adversely affecting U.S. credibility and 
     potentially hindering U.S. market access overseas.
       If the U.S. cannot uphold the basic rules of international 
     trade, our trading partners may take similar actions against 
     U.S. exports, which will ultimately harm American workers, 
     farmers, businesses and the U.S. economy as a whole.
           Respectfully,
         Advanced Medical Technology Association, Agri Beef 
           Company, AJC International, Incorporated, American Farm 
           Bureau Federation, American Meat Institute, Animal 
           Health Institute, Butterball, LLC, Cargill, 
           Incorporated, DGM Commodities, Corporation, Edwards 
           Lifesciences, Elanco, Emergency Committee for American 
           Trade, Fieldale Farms Corporation, Grocery 
           Manufacturers Association, Grove Services, 
           Incorporated, Hormel Foods Corporation,
         Interra International, Incorporated, JBS S.A., Keystone 
           Foods, LLC, Kraft Foods, Incorporated, Maritime 
           Products International, Mar-Jac Poultry, Incorporated, 
           MetaFoods, LLC, Michigan Corn Growers Association, 
           Monsanto Company, National Cattlemen's Beef 
           Association, National Chicken Council, National 
           Fisheries Institute, National Foreign Trade Council, 
           National Meat Association, National Pork Producers 
           Council, National Retail Federation.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to our 
colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina. I'm sorry 
for throwing you off a minute ago. I certainly appreciate the time.
  I speak against this rule, Mr. Speaker, simply because it's a closed 
rule. You know, we come here, 435 Members representing 300 million 
people all across the United States of America with different ideas, 
and we are about to vote on a $123.8 billion bill in which these 435 
Members of Congress have different ideas of how to change it.
  Now, you know the expression, you're dressed up with no place to go. 
That's what it's like being on the Appropriations Committee. Maybe even 
rehearsing for a dance, and when you get to the dance, you find out 
you're not even allowed to dance. Well, that's what happens.
  Ms. DeLauro and I worked very closely over the last several months--
and, indeed, over the last several years--working on agriculture 
issues. We have some sincere agreements, sincere disagreements, but we 
always have a dialogue going.
  But now here, as we are in maybe not the home stretch, but at least 
the halfway point, we find out that the minority Members really can't 
participate today except for in a very narrowly focused gag rule. We 
submitted 90 amendments--we, Democrats and Republicans--in an effort to 
improve this bill, and of those, I believe 12 have been agreed upon. 
And of those, four are noncontroversial and five of them are a little 
bit superficial, if not routine.
  I am just so disappointed in the fact that we can't get back to 
regular order. We have quoted David Obey, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, many times on the House floor and his words 
to the effect that when he was in the minority, how disappointed he 
was.

[[Page H7791]]

And he pointed out that when we lose the rights of the minority, we 
lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body left in the 
world.
  We had a good debate in the Rules Committee, and I thank my friend, 
Mr. McGovern, for facilitating that debate last night. And I don't 
believe that the Rules Committee made the final decision. I think the 
final decision was made down the hall by some staffers. I just believe 
that this really tightlipped, ironclad straitjacket on debate is bad 
for the system, as Mr. Obey lamented in 2006.
  You know, there is a great line from ``Fiddler on the Roof.'' The 
star of it, I think his name is Tevye--I'm not sure, but I know these 
are the words. And he said in the song, ``If I Were a Rich Man,'' 
``Lord who made the lion and the lamb, you decreed I should be what I 
am. Would it spoil some vast eternal plan, if I were a wealthy man?''
  And so my question to my friends on the Rules Committee is, would it 
really spoil some vast eternal plan if you had an open rule? And you 
know the answer is certainly not. And you know that when we were in 
charge for 12 years, we had open rules--7 out of 12 years we had open 
rules on every single appropriations bill except for Legislative 
Branch. And as respects the Ag bill, we only had 1 year that we had a 
modified closed rule, and that was after 16 hours of debate.
  So what is the vast eternal plan that we would spoil if we were 
allowed, in a representative democracy, an open rule? What would really 
happen? Is it that the philosophies of the majority are so fragile that 
they are like a card house, that if a Republican sneezed in the form of 
an amendment the whole thing would tumble down and the Pelosi empire 
would come crashing to the floor and be exposed for some bad and evil 
thing? I don't believe that's the case.
  I think, frankly, that this body would do well with open rules and 
more debates. And I think it would foster a spirit of bipartisanship, 
because I think what we would find out is what most legislative bodies 
find out in State legislatures, that you've got good ideas from 
Republicans and good ideas from Democrats.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 1 minute.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentlewoman.
  If you think about it, Mr. Speaker, some of the good ideas of 
Democrats melding--cross-pollination now--with good ideas of 
Republicans and good ideas of Independents, I think that would be a 
very healthy thing. And then this bill would go out of this Chamber to 
the other body, which we know has no good ideas whatsoever--just joking 
there. A little levity on the House floor is okay.
  The point is we could get together as Democrats and Republicans on 
the House floor and then go debate the Senate, and maybe our ideas 
would prevail. And those ideas wouldn't necessarily be branded as 
Democrat or Republican, but they would be branded as American ideas, 
and they would be of a representative democracy.
  So I hope we will vote this rule down and send it back to the Rules 
Committee, and then we will challenge that vast eternal plan--maybe not 
the one of the Democrat Party, but maybe the one of our forefathers--
that envisioned open debate in an open society as an underpinning of 
democracy.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the 
underlying bill.
  I wasn't going to speak on it, but it just gets bothersome sometimes 
to see how much time we spend on debating a rule. I mean, this process 
is very open. There's no other process in the world that is as open as 
the process inside Congress. And to say that you're denied access to 
the hearings that set up the bill, to the markups, all of these things 
are very open.
  I served for 13 years in the California legislature, a full-time 
professional legislature. We didn't have rules for each debate that we 
were going to conduct on the floor. So in all the years I have served 
in Congress, I have never been asked how did you vote on a rule or was 
the rule an open rule or a closed rule or whatever. These are pretty 
esoteric terms of inside Congress. And to suggest that that process is 
denying people access to a process to make a law and decide how to 
spend money on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug 
Administration, I think, is an exercise in a little bit of futility.
  The substance underlying here is very good. It's about how we spend 
the money, taxpayers' money, on these agencies that are responsible for 
overseeing our food safety, for overseeing the incredible array of 
agriculture that we have in this country unlike any other country in 
the world. The diversity is incredible. Just the county I represent 
grows 85 different crops. I don't think there's another county in the 
United States or the world that grows 85 different crops, $3 billion in 
sales. So all fresh fruit and vegetables, things that you're eating in 
your salad today, a lot of it harvested by immigrants. It's an amazing 
thing because the Department of Agriculture also does the rural 
infrastructure, rural electric, rural water, rural farm work, farm 
worker housing and things like that, kind of the essence of a culture 
of a rural community. Broadband communication systems.
  We have a very competent chairwoman, and she has brought a great bill 
to the floor, and I ask that you support the rule.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the majority party, because they bring bills 
to the floor, amendments to the floor at 3 a.m. and Members have no 
time to read the bills, have effectively taken away the opportunity to 
read bills before we vote on them. And now to suggest that it's a waste 
of time to debate the bill is really taking this, I think, to an 
extreme. So I certainly hope that that idea doesn't catch on along with 
the idea of not letting people read the bills before they vote on them.
  Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
New York (Mr. Lee).
  Mr. LEE of New York. I want to thank my friend for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule for H.R. 2997.
  Over the last year, the rapid decline in the price of milk has had a 
devastating impact on family farms in my district and throughout the 
Northeast region. This year farmers have reported receiving less than 
$11 per hundredweight for their milk, which is less than the $17.50 per 
hundredweight it costs to produce it. This gap is a killer for our 
dairy farmers and will lead to huge job losses in my region.
  Dairy farmers in Livingston County, New York, are projected to lose 
more than $23 million this year. In Wyoming County, New York, losses 
are projected at $28 million. And in Genesee County, over $60 million.
  I cannot emphasize enough how important dairy is to the western New 
York region. It is the Nation's third largest dairy State, generating 
over $2 billion in milk sales annually. More than 145,000 jobs in 
transporting, processing, and marketing milk are directly attributable 
to the region's dairy industry.
  That is why I offered two commonsense proposals to help our 
struggling dairy farmers, including one to enhance the Milk Income Loss 
Contract program and another to raise the dairy product support price. 
This would help ensure our struggling dairy farmers can remain viable 
in these tough economic times.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that my amendments were not accepted. Our 
failure to act is reckless. Our dairy farmers are running out of time.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down the rule so we can give this crisis 
the attention it deserves.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to respond to the gentleman from New York's comments. I 
realize that he's new, but the fact is that both of his amendments 
would have been a violation of the House rules even under an open rule. 
The gentleman was legislating on an appropriations bill. There are 
other ways for him to get his point across.
  I share his concerns on the dairy issue. I come from a New England 
State. But the fact of the matter is

[[Page H7792]]

that even under an open rule, his amendments would have been ruled out 
of order because they're legislating on an appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York for 
raising the issue of the plight of dairy farmers in particular. All 
across my district, we see farmers of all types going out of business, 
but particularly hard hit are the dairy farmers. And there is no 
tougher type of farming than dairy farming in this country. My husband 
and I have done a lot of farming in our lives. We've never had a lot of 
cows, but we both grew up milking cows. And believe me, that is the 
toughest work in the world. You've got to be there every day, all day, 
and these folks are really struggling to stay in business. And the sad 
part about it is that with the cap-and-tax bill that passed last week 
and so many of the other policies of this administration and this 
Congress, we are going headlong into putting a lot of our farmers out 
of business, particularly the dairy farmers.
  Again, the implication here is that we ought not to be spending a lot 
of time talking about the problems that we're facing in this country 
and that agriculture is facing, that all of our citizens are facing. 
But the Democrats in charge want to limit what ideas can be debated on 
the floor and what constituents can be represented in this House.
  Our constituents in both Republican districts and Democrat districts 
are struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment, and yet are 
being shut out of participating in a debate over how their hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars are being borrowed and spent by the Federal 
Government.
  It is a mystery as to why the majority is blocking debate on such 
important legislation. What are they afraid of? Are they protecting 
their Members from tough votes? Are they afraid of the democratic 
process? It's hard to know why they're doing it.
  The Speaker has gone back on her word about making this the most open 
process in the world. Is she afraid that the American people will 
disagree with her? Is she keeping other Democrats from having to make 
tough decisions on difficult votes? Is she afraid of the very 
principles upon which our country is founded? We are very concerned, 
again, with the direction in which this Congress is going as far as the 
rules are concerned.
  During the Independence Day break, I was at home. I went to a lot of 
functions. I spoke to my constituents. I spoke to hundreds of them. 
They told me over and over and over again how concerned they are about 
the direction this country is going. They used the word ``frightened'' 
over and over again. I talked to my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, and they say they are hearing the very same things from their 
constituents at home. They are concerned about the amount of money 
that's being spent by this Congress, the policies that this 
administration is taking, and the direction in which they are moving.
  We know that the Democrats have proposed spending $1.89 trillion of 
American taxpayer money for discretionary government programs in the 
2010 fiscal year. When all appropriation spending is combined, the 
Democrats have increased nondefense, nonveteran discretionary spending 
by 85 percent over the last 2 fiscal years. With millions of jobs lost 
since the passage of the stimulus, the President said this morning 
``there is nothing we would have done differently concerning the $787 
billion spending bill.''
  But that spending bill, which is really a trillion-dollar spending 
bill because of the cost of the bill, isn't creating the jobs Democrats 
promised. Even the Vice President said over the weekend this regarding 
the bill's poor returns: ``The truth is we and everyone else misread 
the economy.''
  Well, no, not everyone else did that because Republicans all voted 
against the stimulus bill. You aren't going to hang that around our 
necks, Mr. Vice President.
  House Democrats now want to spend another trillion dollars on a 
government-run health care bill after they have just crammed through a 
national energy tax.
  At the same time, House Republicans are being denied the opportunity 
to offer cost-cutting amendments to save taxpayer money. Many 
Republican proposals could save billions in wasteful government 
spending and better prioritize how Washington spends taxpayer funds. 
But these ideas are being shut down. This is not the way to operate the 
greatest deliberative body in the world.
  I am going again to suggest to my colleagues that they vote ``no'' on 
this rule because this is not the way we should be going.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                          ____________________