Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 90 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5265-H5295]
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, 2015

General Leave

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4800, and that I may include
tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 616 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4800.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1351

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4800) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 4800, making
appropriations for FY 2015 for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The bill before us is unique
in that the programs supported in this bill will impact every American
every day of the year.
We support America's farmers and ranchers, who are very vital to our
Nation's economy and our health and well-being. We support those at
home in need with food and housing and provide rural businesses with
low-interest loans and grants to help them sustain local economies. We
help others around the world that face starvation and malnutrition. We
support research and development in agriculture to improve productivity
and stability. We support the oversight of commodity markets, providing
confidence for businesses, traders, investors, and the public. We
support a safe food supply and safe and effective drugs and devices. We
are fortunate this Nation can and does support these vital programs.
The bill before us this afternoon reflects a delicate balance of
needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible
bill for FY 2015 spending levels for the departments and agencies that
are under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. We have had to
carefully prioritize the funding in this bill. We have had to make some
hard choices about how to limit spending.
I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for
supporting us with a very fair allocation for this bill and for helping
us move this bill forward.
I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the
subcommittee ranking member. He has been a valuable partner and
colleague as we have moved forward with this legislation. I appreciate
his commitment. I appreciate his understanding as we have moved forward
on a wide variety of programs in this bill, and I sincerely thank him
for his help. While I and the other subcommittee members have a wide
array of agriculture in our districts, Mr. Farr represents an area
sometimes referred to as the ``salad bowl of the world.''

[[Page H5266]]

I want to thank all of the members of the subcommittee for their
help, and I also thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who
is the ranking member for the full committee.
I also thank the majority staff for their hard work: Tom O'Brien,
Betsy Bina, Pam Miller, Andrew Cooper, and Karen Ratzow.
I also appreciate the professionalism and the cooperation of the
minority staff. In particular, I want to thank Martha Foley and Hogan
Medlin for their help during all of the long hours spent putting this
bill and report together, as well as Rochelle Dornatt, Troy Phillips,
and Caitie Whelan of Mr. Farr's staff.
When the subcommittee began the FY15 appropriations process, I asked
my colleagues to keep in mind three guiding principles. They were: to
ensure the proper use of funds through robust oversight, ensuring the
appropriate level of regulation to protect producers and the public,
and to ensure funding is targeted to vital programs.
These three principles guided us from the time the President's budget
request was first submitted to the subcommittee until this bill was put
before the House today. This basic framework helped us set principles
and priorities during the 10 budget hearings and oversight hearings
that we had throughout the spring, which covered all of USDA's mission
area, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, and also included
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
They also formed a framework for us to consider the many requests we
received from our colleagues on this bill. In particular, we received
more than 3,900 requests from 326 Members to support, reduce, or amend
funding levels in the numerous accounts of this bill. Of course we
could not meet every request, but we tried to address these requests in
a bipartisan manner and in a way that was under the House rules. As
such, there are no earmarks included in this bill.
The total funding for this bill is $142.5 billion. This is $1.5
billion below the President's request and $3 billion below the FY14-
enacted level. The bill includes $20.88 billion in discretionary budget
authority, which is the same as the FY14-enacted level. Mandatory
spending totals $122 billion, or $3 billion below the FY14 level. These
mandatory funds support USDA's farm, conservation, crop insurance, and
nutrition programs.
I would like to briefly mention a few highlights that are in this
bill.
We provide $2.8 billion for agricultural research. We have received
many, many letters requesting support for the land-grant colleges and
universities. We were able to provide level funding for them. We also
provided $325 million, as requested, for the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative, which is USDA's premier competitive research
grants program.
We provide $870 million for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service. This agency works to eradicate plant and animal diseases and
keeps the bad bugs out of the country. I am pleased to say that we were
able to increase funding to combat citrus greening disease and the
viral epidemic affecting the hog producers. This funding will
supplement the emergency funding that the administration announced last
week for research and surveillance purposes.
The bill also includes more than $1 billion for the Food Safety and
Inspection Service. This is approximately the same as the FY14 level,
but $3.8 million above the request. It will maintain more than 8,000
inspectors at more than 6,400 meat, poultry, and egg product facilities
across the Nation.
The bill provides $1.5 billion for the Farm Service Agency, and it
does not allow the closure of any county offices. This proposal made no
sense when the 2014 farm bill is still being implemented in county
offices across the Nation. We also fully fund the various farm loan
programs in this bill.

{time} 1400

For the Natural Resources Conservation Service, we provide $869
million to help farmers, ranchers, and private forest land owners
conserve and protect their land and increase funding to help
rehabilitate small dams.
This bill is the only one of the 12 appropriations bills that truly
focuses on rural America. It provides $2.6 billion for the rural
development programs. That includes funding to support $881 million in
business and industry loans, $1.3 billion in loans for rural water and
waste programs, and $6.2 billion for rural electric and telephone
infrastructure. We also provide more than $1 billion for the single-
family direct loan program, $1.1 billion for rental assistance, and $30
million for the Mutual and Self-Help program.
This bill includes both discretionary and mandatory funding for
USDA's food and nutrition programs.
In particular, it provides $6.6 billion for the Women, Infants, and
Children program. This is $93 million below the FY14 enacted level, and
it is actually $200 million below the budget request. But I want to be
clear about the decreased funding because a declining caseload and
large carryover balances from the previous year is why we are doing
this. And let me stress that every person who is eligible for the
program will be able to receive funding under this funding level in
this bill.
The bill includes $20.5 billion in required mandatory funding for
child nutrition programs and $82.3 billion for the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, sometimes referred to as SNAP. This
funding level helps support more than 47 million Americans each month.
To support those in time of need in places like Syria, South Sudan,
and the Central African Republic, the bill provides $1.7 billion for
overseas food aid. We were able to provide a $66 million increase for
Food for Peace grants, and $13 million for the McGovern-Dole Education
and Child Nutrition Program offset from savings that we found elsewhere
in the bill.
The Food and Drug Administration receives $2.6 billion in
discretionary funding in this bill. This is an increase of $23 million
over the FY14 level. When the user fees are included, FDA will receive
$4.5 billion in FY15.
Within the total, the committee provides a $25 million increase of
the full amount requested for food safety activities in the President's
budget, and drug safety activities are increased by $12 million.
Furthermore, the bill includes $218 million for the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission. This is an increase of $3 million above last year's
level and is intended to address information technology needs.
Before I close, I do want to address one issue that has opened up a
necessary dialogue in local cafeterias and schools across the Nation.
It is the provision that would allow schools to seek a temporary--and
let me stress that it is a temporary--waiver from the current school
lunch standards if a school district has lost money over the last 6-
month period as a result of trying to implement the new regulations.
I have had a constant stream of letters, I have talked to people,
received emails, and I have had meetings over the past year with school
nutritionists, with the teachers, and the school administrators. I have
talked to parents, and I have talked to students, all concerned about
the rising cost, the increased waste, and the declining participation
in the school lunch program.
To tell the truth, the students have been concerned about the taste,
they have been concerned about the variety and the quality of the
meals. But, again, we have gone to the school nutritionists, to the
teachers, and the administrators who have identified where the real
problem is.
This is a real problem in many school districts across the country.
Some school districts may not be experiencing this problem, but many,
many are across the country. This bill acknowledges the concerns of
schools and responds to their requests for a certain amount of
flexibility. It only allows schools more time if they need it. In fact,
it provides something very similar to the flexibility that USDA
recently announced for the whole grain requirements.
The benefits to farmers, ranchers, consumers, businesses, and
patients provided in this bill far outweigh any one or two objections a
Member may have about this bill. The bill represents our best take on
matching needs with limited resources. We have tried to work hard to
produce the best bill we possibly can within the resources that we have
had to work with in this appropriations process.
I thank the Members for their attention, and I would urge all the
Members

[[Page H5267]]

to support this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to passing this
bill on the floor as we move forward, and I reserve the balance of my
time.

[[Page H5268]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.001

[[Page H5269]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.002

[[Page H5270]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.003

[[Page H5271]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.004

[[Page H5272]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.005

[[Page H5273]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.006

[[Page H5274]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.007

[[Page H5275]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.008

[[Page H5276]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.009

[[Page H5277]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.010

[[Page H5278]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.011

[[Page H5279]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.012

[[Page H5280]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH11JN14.013

[[Page H5281]]

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise having cosponsored this bill as the ranking member on the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. I have to say that I think we
have worked very well together. We have worked together as chair and
ranking member over a period of time. It is an interesting perspective.
I think we have crossed the cultural divide when a Californian can
understand the language of an Alabaman, and we have become friends.
I have to say that probably 90 percent of this bill is something we
all agree on. Ten percent is what we don't agree on, and it is a
horrible 10 percent--a big 10 percent. The bill allocates $20.8
billion, which is the same as what we came up with last year in the
conference level.
I appreciate the working relationship that Mr. Aderholt already
outlined and the wonderful staff that both his office and I have, and
my office and the committee has. We all work well together as a team.
So we bring this bill to the floor today.
It is quite a privilege to be able to have this position, and I think
that we all understand the privilege, because the USDA, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, which is our main focus, in addition to the
Food and Drug Administration, and to the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, the Department of Agriculture, many people don't
understand, was created during the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln. It was
a department that needed to be created as the United States was facing
the Western expansion. Abraham Lincoln was very insightful in realizing
that people who moved out into the boonies needed help. There is no
infrastructure there. There is nothing there. It became kind of a home
ec department. And to this day, the Department of Agriculture still has
a division of rural water, a division of rural housing, farmworker
housing, and of rural telecommunications.
It is obviously involved with all the science research in agriculture
and a big research section. The USDA has a specialist in almost every
county in the United States and almost every country in the world, as
we have ag advisers in all of our Embassies.
It is an awesome responsibility to govern a very complex system of
trade and balances, of phytosanitary inspections, of fighting diseases
that get into this country. And it is a lot of fun, also, and I think
that is why we get along well trying to put together a good bill.
Now, I voted against this bill in committee because of the concerns
of several aspects. Among these concerns are two highly objectionable
nutrition riders. I am really concerned that the bill would allow
school food authorities to get waivers from complying with the improved
lunch and breakfast nutrition standards in the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act, which we enacted in 2010. The bill would allow them to get
waivers if they show they are operating at a net loss.
I believe that rather than going backwards and serving children in
some schools less healthy meals, we should be encouraging the USDA to
continue giving schools the technical assistance they need to meet the
standards. We should also be encouraging USDA to continue providing
flexibility, where warranted, in meeting nutritional standards. The
approach in this bill, however, is unacceptable.
Second, despite the recommendations of the medical community
indicating that consumption of starchy vegetables meets or exceeds
recommended amounts, and the food in-take data showing that white
potatoes are the most widely used vegetables and therefore by law or by
statute have been excluded from the WIC program, where you get vouchers
to buy fresh fruits and vegetables, this bill allows white potatoes to
be purchased under that program. It is not necessary at all. The white
potato lobby is a very effective lobby.
I am troubled by the inclusion of this bill requiring white potatoes
be eligible for purchase in the WIC program. The WIC program, as I
said, gives supplemental nutrition through specified foods, and white
potatoes is not one of them. So there are some real concerns with this
bill. This is the first time that Congress has dictated as to what has
to be purchased with those vouchers, and we have never before mandated
an inclusion of a specific food item in the WIC food package in the
history of the program.
While the funding levels in this bill are, in general, acceptable,
there are some exceptions. The most notable to that is the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission. This is a Commission that reviews about
$300 trillion in trade. That is almost $1 trillion a day. And what we
do is provide funding to have the referees so that they know when the
trading is being fair or not fair, and it is essentially a review
process, but they need money to hire those referees, as we call them.
The President asked for $62 million more than we are allowing him to
have to fill the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act. Those are big concerns.
On the positive side, the bill restores the Food for Peace funding to
2014 levels. It increases the McGovern-Dole program by $13 million over
the 2014 levels. But I am also concerned that in these programs there
is an exclusion of important reforms that would have furthered the
impact of each dollar spent on food aid.
Given the high level of need, our food aid has to be as cost
effective and as efficient as possible, so I am disappointed that food
aid reforms enabling more people to be fed at lower cost were not
included in the bill.
I would like to say that you are going to hear a lot of my colleagues
raise issues on some of these issues because it is very important that
we try to get it right and hopefully defeat some of the bad provisions
that are in this bill.
Food is peace. America leads the world in food assistance. California
is the number one agriculture State in the Union. I am proud to be the
ranking member in bringing this bill to the floor for healthy debate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
bill. This is the fifth of the twelve 2015 appropriations cycle bills.
It provides $20.9 billion in discretionary funding for important
agriculture, rural development, and FDA programs.
With this legislation, we ensure America's farmers and ranchers--who
contribute billions to our economy, as well as create jobs and put food
on our tables--have the resources they need to continue to remain
successful.
We have provided responsible funding for programs that work to stop
crop, plant, and animal disease that can cripple U.S. producers and
entire industries. Funding is also directed to programs that help
conserve and protect farmland, and improve water quality and food
safety.
In addition, this bill also provides funding for infrastructure
development, housing loans and rental assistance, and economic
opportunities for America's rural communities. These vital loans and
programs help foster an environment for economic growth and will help
rural America thrive.
The committee also prioritized the safety of our Nation's food and
drug supply, targeting increases to FDA food and drug safety
activities.
The funding in this bill will maintain 8,000 inspection personnel for
meat, poultry, and egg products and facilities across the Nation.
I am also pleased that we have included language that forces the FDA
to develop more robust guidelines for abuse-deterrent opioid pill
formulations. We withhold $20 million from the Commissioner's office
until these long-overdue regulations are finalized, because the drugs
on the market that are not abuse-deterrent result in opioid addictions,
overdoses, and deaths. They need to be corrected.

{time} 1415

Prescription drug abuse is a scourge on this Nation, and FDA can and
should be doing more to battle this epidemic.
Beyond funding these critical USDA and FDA programs, the bill also
includes funding for a variety of nutrition programs, making sure our
most vulnerable, including our children and elderly, don't go hungry.
The discretionary funding level in this bill is about the same as
last year,

[[Page H5282]]

which is a testament to the hard work of this subcommittee to find
savings wherever possible to make that possible. Each and every program
within this bill has been closely examined to help make the best
decisions about where to direct tax dollars and where to trim funding.
The bill also makes strides to make these programs more efficient,
more effective, and more useful for the American people and strengthens
congressional oversight, particularly where it comes to mandatory
spending on important nutrition programs.
For example, within SNAP, formerly called food stamps, we have
required the enforcement of a ban on certain outreach with foreign
governments and implemented protocols to help weed out waste, fraud,
and abuse.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is a commonsense bill that
makes every step to adequately fund important agricultural programs, to
support our most vulnerable citizens, and to act with fiscal restraint.
I want to thank Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member Farr, the
subcommittee members, and their staffs for all they did to achieve this
very good bill. It was not easy because the allocation they had was not
perfect, but they made do with it, and they made do well. I want to
thank them for their hard work and congratulate them on a good bill. I
urge unanimous support for the bill.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman
and the ranking member in putting together this bill. While many of the
funding decisions are appropriate, I do oppose this bill because I have
deep objections to controversial riders.
First, this bill would begin to back away from much-needed efforts to
make school meals healthier. According to the CDC, as of 2012, more
than one-third of children and adolescents were obese.
Obese children are more likely to become obese adults, and thus are
at a much greater risk of developing heart diseases, type 2 diabetes,
stroke, and forms of cancer. Schools should support and teach healthy
eating habits.
Instead of providing waivers, this bill should help the districts
meet this higher standard by providing the technical assistance and
training to become compliant.
Additionally, bill language would make white potatoes eligible for
purchase by WIC participants, which is inconsistent with the purpose of
the WIC program to include only foods based on documented nutritional
deficiencies.
White potatoes are excluded today based on the best available
science, and science, not special interests, should continue to be the
guide for WIC's policies.
The majority should have fully embraced the work and purpose of the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and fully funded the
administration's request. I am also concerned that the bill provides
only half of the requested funds to expand and improve oversight of
drug compounding to ensure products are safe and effective.
I thank the chairman for working with me to ensure that the summer
feeding pilot program remains open to children in rural and urban areas
and adding report language related to sunscreen ingredients, sprays,
and high SPF products.
I very much support the additional $13 million in funding for the
McGovern-Dole food aid program and the restoration of funding for the
Food for Peace program.
However, the bill should have also included the administration's
proposal to allow up to 25 percent of title II resources to be made
available in cash for emergencies to better respond to multiple, high-
level crises around the world. This change alone would have allowed
U.S. aid to reach an estimated 2 million more people in chronically
food-insecure communities.
The bill provides sufficient funds for nutritional assistance
programs, such as WIC and SNAP, and provides needed discretionary funds
for food safety programs within FDA and the Food Safety and Inspection
Service.
It is my sincere hope that we can improve these shortcomings before a
bill is signed into law.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in an important colloquy
with Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Aderholt of
Alabama and the ranking member of the Livestock Subcommittee on the
House Ag Committee, Mr. Costa of California, regarding the issue of
mandatory country of origin labeling, or COOL, for beef, pork, and
poultry.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I strongly support discontinuing the
overreaching country of origin labeling regulations that not only
burden our Nation's livestock industry, but threaten massive
retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico on a vast range of U.S.
industry and products.
I appreciate your work in the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
to include a directive in the bill's report language requiring USDA to
discontinue enforcement of COOL, should the WTO compliance panel rule
against the United States when they make their decision in a few weeks.
However, I believe the final appropriations bill should include the
strongest language possible to prevent any further harm to the
livestock industry and all industries threatened on the retaliatory
trade list.
COOL represents yet another failed policy of the Federal Government,
imposing costly and burdensome mandates on private sector industry.
While the primary goal of COOL is to give American-grown meat a
competitive advantage, the result has been exactly the opposite.
As a direct result of this policy, we are not only seeing sharp
increases in the cost of marketing and selling beef and pork, but trade
retaliation from our closest trading partners will cost us billions of
dollars in trade, which will kill U.S. jobs, harm our competitiveness,
and have a long-term negative impact on American industry.
As you prepare for conference, I hope we can work together to make
sure the final bill provides the most appropriate response to this
problem.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, we are again, I think, missing an
opportunity with regard to the country of origin labeling, otherwise
referred to as COOL.
COOL has proven, as Mr. Crawford has stated, to be a failed
experiment. We are seeing an increased cost to ranchers and processors
in order to comply with these regulations that are ultimately passed on
to the consumers and to make it more difficult to provide the separate
lines of animal source from different countries to fulfill the intent
of the law.
This program has added nothing but cost to the cattle industry in
America, and it is time where we make an attempt to deal with these
added costs.
To be totally honest, we don't even know what the actual costs to the
industry are. Its producers and processors have had difficulty putting
together a formal economic impact, so an analysis has never yet been
done.
Finally--and probably more important--it is threatening to the trade
relationship with our two biggest markets in the export of U.S. beef,
pork, and chicken, which is Canada and Mexico.
Should, as we all assume, the WTO rule against the United States, we
will face harsh retaliatory efforts against the products produced here
and we are trying to encourage, not only in my home State of
California, but in America.
No one wants to see retaliatory efforts made by Canada or Mexico. I
know, in talking with producers and people in the industry in Canada
and Mexico, they don't want to pursue retaliatory efforts.
We have the data and the studies and the WTO experience to show that
it is time that we fix COOL. We want to see this problem resolved, and
we want to work together to do it. Hopefully, we will use this
legislation to do just that.
Mr. Chairman, we hope you will work with us to provide relief in the
event the World Trade Organization does rule against the United States.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman from California
that I will be committed to working with both he and Mr. Crawford as we
continue on this issue. I agree with my

[[Page H5283]]

colleagues that the final WTO ruling on the pending COOL case could
bring irreparable harm to various U.S. industries.
As has been noted, report language has been included expressing the
committee's concern that U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada will suffer
an economic impact of approximately $2 billion in retaliatory tariffs.
The report directs USDA not to implement or enforce the COOL final rule
for meat labeling, should the WTO issue a final ruling against the
United States.
Again, I can assure both of my colleagues here this afternoon that it
is my intention to protect our domestic industries from retaliation. We
will closely monitor the progress of the WTO in this matter and will
respond as necessary, so that our U.S. economy does not suffer.
I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to discuss this important
issue with both of you, and I look forward to working with both of you
as we move forward.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the second generation of
congresspersons from the Roybal family.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to provisions
in this bill that undermine nutrition standards for school meals and
the WIC program. Nutrition programs that support balanced diets are
vital tools in protecting against childhood hunger and reducing
childhood obesity.
While I appreciate Chairman Aderholt's efforts to fully fund
childhood nutrition programs, I strongly oppose this bill because it
weakens, unnecessarily, Federal child nutrition standards; rather than
allowing USDA to work with schools to help them meet healthier
nutrition criteria, this bill undermines the national school meal
program by allowing a blanket waiver to any school that says it can't
meet the new standards.
In addition, the bill adds white potatoes to the WIC food package,
ignoring research findings that white potatoes are already consumed
above recommended levels and should not compete with other fruits and
vegetables for limited WIC vouchers.
Mr. Chairman, we have an obesity crisis in our country, and our
Nation's children and families are best served when Federal nutrition
standards are guided by science. Now is not the time to lower the
benchmarks that protect our children's health now and in the future.
I urge my colleagues to support amendments that remove these damaging
riders to the bill.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your and the committee's
hard work on crafting the agriculture appropriations bill on the floor
today. It is a bill that supports American farmers, protects the safety
of our food, keeps rural America vibrant, and ensures that our taxpayer
dollars are being used efficiently and effectively.
I also want to thank you and the committee's continued support for an
issue that is very important to my constituents of the Second District
of Ohio, the Asian long-horned beetle. This pest, also known as ALB, is
one of the most destructive, invasive species that has entered the
United States.
These beetles have been discovered in New York, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, and Illinois, and they were first seen in my district in
2012. Mr. Chairman, ALB is devastating our trees. These insects burrow
themselves into the heartwood of our trees, where they lay larvae and
feast off the wood.
As a result, trees in my community are dying or becoming so
structurally weak that they are unsafe to even be near them. This
doesn't just affect one type of tree, unfortunately, but over a dozen
different species.
Eradicating this infestation is extremely important to me and my
constituents. Unfortunately, the infestation has already come at a very
high cost. To date, roughly 43,000 trees have been removed in Clermont
County of Ohio, due to the Asian long-horned beetle, including over
30,000 trees that have not even yet been infested.
This is 43,000 less trees that can no longer provide shade on a sunny
day or protect against erosion; not to mention, this infestation and
tree removal is directly impacting the property values of homeowners.
Currently, cutting down and removing trees is the most common method
used to eradicate these beetles. My constituents are having their trees
removed from their own private properties, turning front yards into
lumber yards.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that you insert language into the conference
report that would encourage the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture to support alternative methods to tree removal to combat
the Asian long-horned beetle.
Thank you, and I appreciate your past and continued efforts to
eradicate this destructive pest.

{time} 1430

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this agriculture
funding bill. Budgeting is about choices, and this bill makes the wrong
choices for the American people.
Time and again in this legislation the House majority has chosen to
put profits and politics before nutrition and food safety. It puts
partisan ideology before impartial science, and the interests of big
corporate industries over the needs of families and children.
Examples: for decades our Federal nutrition policies have been based
on the principle of sound scientific research and evidence-based
decisionmaking. Until now, Congress has never prescribed the details of
Federal nutrition programs. This bill circumvents the Institute of
Medicine process for determining the appropriate foods to offer in the
Supplemental Women, Infants, and Children program, or the WIC package.
To benefit industry, the House majority adds white potatoes to WIC,
despite the advice and findings of nutritionists that white potatoes
are not lacking in a mother's and children's diets. In fact, they are
the most consumed vegetable in America. This is the same type of
thinking from Congress that got pizza called a vegetable.
Further, this bill would waive requirements for schools to meet the
nutrition standards that we passed as part of the 2010 Healthy Hunger-
Free Kids Act. These standards, developed by experts, improve school
meals, remove unhealthy junk foods in our Nation's schools. The
standards have already been achieved at over 90 percent of America's
schools and are working to help kids choose healthier food options.
House Republicans are trying to appease special interests by weakening
child nutrition programs in this bill.
The bill also undermines menu labeling and creates carve-outs for
industries at the expense of health. It assumes a passage of an
accelerated and unsafe poultry inspection system that increases the
chance of contaminated chicken on our kitchen tables just so companies
can make more profit.
At a time when foodborne illness outbreaks are a continual challenge,
it cuts the Food Safety and Inspection Service, a linchpin of our food
safety efforts, by $6 million, putting families at risk, and no
permanent inspectors will be able to be hired.
This bill dangerously underfunds the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission. It allows risky financial transactions to continue, putting
the profits of Wall Street ahead of consumers.
These are all unprecedented attempts to use the appropriations
process to do the bidding of industry and special interests at the
expense of the public interest.
Our job--our job--is to craft a budget that does right by the
American people, that helps kids get the nutrition that they need to
grow, that fights hunger in all of our communities, and that ensures
that our food supply is safe. This budget fails in all of these
regards, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey, Dr. Holt.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the nutrition
standards for school meals and in strong opposition to the waivers to
those standards in this legislation that would result in schools
providing nutritionally deficient meals.

[[Page H5284]]

Federal child nutrition programs help alleviate hunger and poor
nutrition, and were it not for these programs, many students would not
receive enough to eat. In New Jersey alone, my home State, the number
of children who were eligible for free and reduced school meals
increased by 22 percent in the past 5 years to a total that now exceeds
half a million children.
According to a study from Harvard released earlier this year, because
of the nutrition standards, children are eating more fruits and
vegetables. These standards are working, and they are helping children
receive better nutrition.
We knew a decade ago that almost half of school lunches were based on
prepackaged foods high in calories and fat and salt. Many schools did
not offer fruits and vegetables as part of their meals. Congress acted
and raised the standards. Healthy children are the source of our
country's well-being. The effects of these new standards last long
after the children leave school.
At a time when one in three American children is overweight or obese,
school nutrition standards can reduce the long-term health costs. And
at a time when medical costs are growing ever higher, we should be
thinking of ways to reduce health care costs, especially by encouraging
more healthful living. We should support Mr. Farr's amendment when he
brings it up that would retain, in this bill, the good nutritional
standards.
Almost all schools are meeting the new standards now. The USDA has
provided flexibility to schools to allow schools to successfully
implement the standards, and that is reflected in the high adoption
rate among schools across the Nation.
Through the Farm to School Program that I helped write in the Healthy
Hunger-Free Kids Act, Hopewell Elementary School, for example, in my
district is providing more local produce on their menu. This is helping
the kids learn about healthy eating, learn where our food comes from--
not a package or a box, but from the ground and from farmers. We should
give them the best nutrition.
Congress should continue to ensure that schools have the resources to
meet the standards, not to lower the standards or exempt schools from
them.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlelady from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, I thank the
gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to the language in
this bill that rolls back standards that ensure our children are being
fed nutritious foods at school.
As a former State health secretary, I want to refocus this debate
where I think it belongs, and that is on health. What we are really
talking about here is the health of our children. More than one-third
of children and adolescents are overweight or obese, and more than 2
million adolescents are prediabetic.
Mr. Chair, children who learn to eat nutritious food are more likely
to continue those healthy habits as adults. The best place to teach
children about healthy eating is where they spend most of their time--
in school.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues concerned about the cost of
nutritious food to think about the cost of obesity and malnutrition and
to think about our children's future. My colleagues say that it is too
hard, that children really don't like healthy foods. I agree that
making change isn't easy, but we are going to have to invest some time
and energy into teaching our children to make healthy choices. That is
a change worth making.
I thank the gentleman from California, who has been a real leader on
this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support his efforts to fix the
bill.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my
colleague from Alabama for his leadership on this issue.
This is an issue where I think we all agree. We want children in this
country to eat healthier. We all want to fight childhood obesity. But I
come up to this podium in opposition to this amendment because I am a
parent. I have three kids in public schools. I coach youth football. I
coach Little League. I talk to children. I have talked to
superintendents and principals in central Illinois about this problem.
And it is not just a problem that Washington can solve, but it is a
problem that Washington created that we need to fix.
There is a lot of plate waste. You look at a recent Los Angeles Times
article, upwards of $20 million per year the Los Angeles, California,
school district is losing to plate waste. 1.2 million less children in
this country are participating in the school lunch program, the school
nutrition program.
In my district, schools like Monticello, Illinois, have pulled out of
the school nutrition program because they were losing upwards of
$100,000 a year to comply with regulations that were thought of in a
concrete building in Washington, D.C., rather than rural America.
Now, what have we done?
We have asked Secretary Vilsack to offer some flexibility to schools
like Monticello so that more kids will participate and that school
district doesn't have to choose between following the rules and
regulations set forth in Washington, D.C., and choosing to hire two
teachers.
We have asked the White House and the USDA to voluntarily comply with
the same rules and regulations that every school nutrition program,
every school cafeteria in this country has to comply with. No answer.
We have offered for Secretary Vilsack to come visit the school
districts that have talked to me about this being a burden and a
problem financially for them. Still no answer.
Giving schools flexibility does not mean that I want kids to eat
unhealthy. It means parents and local schools districts know better how
to feed our children rather than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
I am going to continue to advocate for more flexibility for these
regulations so that we don't lose more than the 1.2 million children
that should be participating in the school lunch program.
What I want to know is why this administration and why the USDA fails
to recognize that there is a problem in rural America and a problem in
our urban schools when it comes to money that could be better spent
educating our children in this great country.
Support this legislation. Do not support this amendment.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time each side has
remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has 12\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Holt) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the
great State of California (Mr. George Miller), the author of the Child
Nutrition Act. He probably knows more about child nutrition than
anybody in Congress.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, these are not regulations
that were written in Washington, D.C. These are regulations that were
written in cooperation with school food service personnel,
superintendents and teachers and school districts all over the country.
After many years of deliberation, we have continued to improve this
program. Plate waste is less now than it was before. What we have
discovered is, if children can select what they wanted to eat from a
healthy menu, where we didn't have to worry that they were just
selecting high-sugar content and high-salt content, they were eating
what they liked, what they became familiar with, plate waste went down.
The purpose of this program is not to increase the profits of food
processors or the agribusiness industry in this country. The purpose of
this program is to improve the nutrition of children in our schools.
Why? Because we understand that nutrition is directly connected to how
well those children do in the classroom, not because I say so, not
because the Secretary of Education says so or the Secretary of
Agriculture, but because classroom teachers will tell you that if
children don't have nutrition in the morning, if there is not food in
their homes and they come to

[[Page H5285]]

school, they start to act out in class because they start to drift. And
the fact is the school breakfast program has made a remarkable
difference. The school lunch program has made a remarkable difference
in children not acting out in class and children being able to
concentrate and to perform better, to get better grades, to graduate
from high school. It is directly connected.
Now what we see is that industry thinks that this is simply some kind
of marketing system for their products. It is like white potatoes
aren't available to poor people, white potatoes aren't available to
people on food stamps, white potatoes aren't available in America. Yes,
they are. But in the WIC program, it is directly related to the health
of that mother, the fetus, the newborn infant, and the young child. We
have to think about what a healthy meal means to the healthy
development of that child. A surplus of white potatoes in that diet is
not necessarily what you want to have happen.
In that schoolroom, what we want is good nutrition. We are not going
to let that be dictated by the industry. The idea that somehow school
districts can't comply, well, 90 percent have complied, and 90 percent
have complied within the additional amount of money that the Federal
Government made available so they could comply.

{time} 1445

The Secretary has been reaching out to those districts in trouble,
and I suggest those districts reach out to other districts in their
area that are complying and finding this to be helpful. This isn't some
big burden by the Federal Government. This is working in 90 percent of
the districts.
Our own School Nutrition Association of California is against this
waiver. We have very creative people. In our committee, we brought
those people in and we talked about plate waste, we talked about
flexibility, and that was incorporated in this legislation when it
became the law of the land.
So on the whim and the misinformation that somehow it is not working,
somehow it is impossible to do, I will stand with 90 percent of the
districts and school food service people who are implementing it. I
will stand with the health officials. I will stand with the teachers
that understand what a difference it means to have healthy and
nutritious food available to these children during the school day.
We have got to support the Farr amendment. We have got to take care
of our children. We have got to give them an opportunity to learn in
our schools, and good nutrition provides that opportunity. Bad
nutrition interrupts that opportunity.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. And the time is expired for this
kind of legislation.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I know this has been a controversial issue in this bill. I sincerely
think that everybody in this House is well-intentioned about kids'
meals, so I in no way want to say the other side is trying to hurt the
schoolchildren. To indicate that the Republicans are trying to hurt the
school kids is a complete misreading on what the Republicans are trying
to do and what we are trying to do in this bill.
There are so many good intentions about this. I think what has
happened is, a lot of the regulations as they have come down to a lot
of these school districts, every school district is different, and it
is hard to have a cookie cutter mentality in every school district in
the Nation. That is really what makes this Nation. We are many States
but we are one Nation, and they are not all the same.
What this legislation would do with just some commonsense standards--
and I by no means say that my colleagues have bad intentions. I would
never say that to my colleague from California, and I hope he would not
say that about me on this issue. We are talking about providing lunches
and flexibility to students and to the school nutritionists to meet
their needs. We are not asking that this roll back the nutrition
standards, we are not asking that it gut the underlying law. But some
of the comments made, those would be the comments that you would think
that we are trying to gut the entire law.
Mr. Davis made some very important comments when he spoke. All of us
want kids to eat healthy meals, and we want to see child obesity
decline. But simply providing school lunches that the kids won't eat
and stopping there is not what this is about.
Student participation in the program continues to decline. A lot of
the students are now bringing their lunches while the kids that are on
these meal programs, they have no choice to eat this food while the
other kids are bringing much more unhealthy food to the cafeteria, and
watching them eat this other kind of food. It is just really
disconcerting to see this. But we all have the same goal. Like I said,
it is very disconcerting to hear that some of us would want our kids to
be obese or to be unhealthy, and that is furthest from the truth.
I just want to say that because I think it is very important as we
move forward with this debate.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I would like to announce that the Tom Colicchio group--
he is one of those celebrity chefs and his group is called the Food
Policy Action Network--they have told us that they are going to score
the vote on this bill because of this provision that we are talking
about right now and the amendment that I am going to offer to strike
the provision.
The reason I want to strike the provision in the bill is because it
just gives it a blank waiver. It says, schools, you don't have to
comply. That is too broad. We could have worked out some compromise
language and more flexible language. But just to give them blank
waiver, I think, is just an opt-out and doesn't necessarily get them
back in, doesn't have any guidelines for how you can improve and get
back on track. That's why I think it is a pretty extreme provision in
the bill and ought to be knocked out.
Another reason is that we are paying for it. The taxpayers of this
country put up the money and we are allocating it to this program, and
I don't think the taxpayers want their money to go to food that isn't
nutritious, that doesn't help kids to be healthier. I am not
insinuating that the other side wants that, but I am saying that with
that money, as in everything we do in the whole rest of this bill, it
comes with conditionality.
Congress is a heavy parent. We don't just give money out. We also
give instructions on what to spend it for and not to spend it for. When
we are giving money to schools for school nutrition--for school lunch,
school breakfast, school snack programs--we put some conditionality in
it, and the conditionality is, let's buy healthy food with it, fruits
and vegetables, and serve them to the kids.
I know there are places that say that is not what the kids eat at
home or what they like, and so they are throwing it away. That is
called ``plate waste.'' But frankly, there is plate waste in our
cafeteria here in Congress. There is plate waste everywhere. There is
too much plate waste in America. When so much of the world can't get
access to food we are throwing away about 50 percent of what we prepare
every day, which is just appalling.
How do you change that? One is you get kids to like what they are
eating. We have to encourage our kids to eat vegetables. As was said
earlier, you have to encourage your kids to take a bath, you have to
encourage your kids to turn off the television set, you have to
encourage your kids to do the math homework that they don't want to do.
We give instruction.
I think what is missing in this whole debate is the instructional
opportunity. Frankly, America has got to face the fact that we have not
really put much attention into raising a culture of people that have
values in food health, in body health, and the fast food industry has
been very good at getting a lot of sugar, a lot of salt, a lot of
things out there that taste really great, and people want to eat that
all the time, but your body is not made to handle all that.
I think it is an opportunity for us to use the school nutrition
program as a learning method. I point out that when I grew up there
weren't any fast foods. McDonald's was the first fast food industry to
come to our area. It came to the biggest city in my county in 1964. I
had already graduated from college. So

[[Page H5286]]

all my youth experience was eating at home, eating in the school, and
there were never any fast foods. It was all fresh prepared every day. I
didn't have the ability to get all that. If anything, it was in a can,
and a whole new industry was developing to have fresh frozen.

So we have an opportunity to help our national security problem with
food nutrition because the military officers tell us that 75 percent of
the youth today cannot qualify to get in the military--75 percent. That
is just appalling. That is why they have indicated that we need to have
a school nutrition program.
We also see it in health care costs, the biggest cost in America. Why
we did this whole health care reform was to bring down cost. Underlying
all of that was, hey, we are going to raise healthier people in this
country so we can avoid--the ounce of prevention--avoid those expensive
costs when people get diabetes, obesity, and other things that are
preventable. So what better way to teach the cost of prevention than
through nutritional health and exercise.
Lastly, why it is important that we wipe out this provision in the
bill is because we are paying. The money is all there. So the schools
that would be able to get the flexibility that you talk about, the
waiver, they get to keep all the money but they don't have any of the
responsibility to deliver the product, to deliver the nutritional
foods. I think that is where we are wrong. We can't just give them
money and then no responsibility to be wisely spent on the purposes for
which it was intended.
So that amendment is going to come up later, and I hope that I can
get support from this amendment across the aisle.
Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining so I can
see how much time I can yield?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FARR. All right. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee for a
colloquy.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Miller was talking about white potatoes. How does this
bill affect white potatoes? I saw this movie called ``Fed Up,'' and
white potatoes in general are the evil that cause people to get obese
and gain weight. How are white potatoes in this bill?
Mr. FARR. Thank you for asking. The other provision is not in this
school nutrition program, but in the WIC--the Women, Infants, and
Children--program where we give vouchers to mothers of newborns or
pregnant women in expectation that they are having children. To give
them access to healthy fruits and vegetables we give them vouchers.
In that recommended formula, what the voucher should be spent on is,
they are not allowed to spend them on white potatoes. Why? Because
Americans eat about 90 pounds of white potatoes or potatoes per year.
Think of it. They have hash browns for breakfast, french fries for
lunch, and baked potatoes for night. That is a lot of potatoes in one
day. Certainly, a newborn and about-to-be-born are not necessarily
needing potatoes.
Nonetheless, the potato industry is very powerful here and they were
able to get a provision in demanding that the vouchers also include the
ability to buy white potatoes. That is what stirred up this whole
comment, because Congress has never dictated as to what you have to buy
with it or to get into buying things that haven't been recommended as
nutritional.
Mr. COHEN. That is what I was astonished about, Mr. Farr, when I
watched this movie. It was Katie Couric, and I forget all the other
people involved in producing it. But it was about how Congress had
basically acquiesced to special interests to change the dietary
guidelines, to the detriment of children, women, and infants.
Carbohydrates and the production of insulin causing the digestive
system and body to produce fat is the main cause of obesity. It is not
exercise. It is not pushing yourself away from the table so much, but
they discovered it is carbs and white potatoes. So we are now putting
white potatoes back because of the potato industry? This is the Idaho
provision?
Mr. FARR. It is often said as a food analogy that if you like
sausages or laws you should never watch either of them being made.
Perhaps what you are watching is that white potato mandate is getting
stuck into this bill.
Mr. COHEN. Sausages and white potatoes. Thank you, sir.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, we worked hard to try to put together a
pretty good bill, except for these two provisions that we were just
talking about and the underfunding of the Federal Commodities Futures
Trading Commission, and we will be having amendments on those issues.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. May I inquire as to how many speakers the minority has.
Mr. FARR. We don't have any further speakers.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Alabama has 1 minute remaining and the
right to close.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that,
unfortunately, I think is misunderstood.
In school districts like Monticello, Illinois, that had to make the
tough decision to pull out of the program, they don't get the Federal
dollars anymore. They don't get the reimbursement. But they had to make
the cost-benefit decision of whether or not to still feed those who
qualify for free and reduced lunch out of their own pocket so they
wouldn't lose the $100,000 a year. When the Los Angeles school district
is losing upwards of $20 million a year, it is a big deal because
school districts are having to choose between teachers and complying
with Federal rules and regulations.
I believe that the decision on how to feed children is best left to
parents and our local school districts. Do you know what? The kids that
are hurt the worst by this, that is why we are asking for this waiver.
We are asking for the USDA to approve a waiver. That is it; nothing
more, nothing less.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I just wanted to clarify. I think the school district
in Illinois you are talking about, they got out of the system because a
hard boiled egg was not appropriate, or anything more than 12 ounces of
skim milk was deemed inappropriate. That is what we are talking about,
the regulations that are so out of whack.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. And the kids that are hurt the worst
are the poorest kids who don't have the ability to go out to the
convenience store when they are hungry afterwards, like many of the
children of ours, and feed themselves. That is the only meal they may
get that day, and we can't have Washington determining what that meal
is.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, let me explain that not a drop of this money,
a cent of it, can be spent on a teacher's salary. This is not, ``We are
going to spend it on food or a teacher's salary.'' This is only for
food, and the Federal Government takes sole responsibility for that. If
States want to add something they can. But it is a Federal program, one
of the only solid Federal programs in K-12 education.
I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Takano).
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Congressman Farr's
amendment that would remove the waiver that would exempt schools from
providing even half a cup of fruits and vegetables to their students
for lunch. More than 200 education and nutrition organizations oppose
the weakening of nutrition standards. While it may be difficult to get
kids to eat healthier, it is possible, as 90 percent of schools are
already meeting the standards.
Rodney Taylor, the food service director at Riverside Unified School
District, which is in my district, sent me a letter about the
importance of nutrition standards, saying:

Children in our district and many others are enjoying meals
that meet updated school lunch requirements from the USDA,
proving that it is possible to have healthy children and
healthy budgets. Letting schools opt out

[[Page H5287]]

of these standards will not help them move forward and will
be detrimental to the children they serve.

{time} 1500

I thank Congressman Farr for introducing this amendment, and I urge
all of my colleagues to support it, so we can move forward in the fight
against childhood obesity.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of
Section 738, a section allowing for the inclusion of white potatoes in
the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC), in the fiscal year 2015 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
I commend Chairman Aderholt as well as Chairman Rogers for their work
crafting this legislation in a bipartisan manner.
Washington State is blessed with an incredibly diverse agriculture
industry, providing our nation and the rest of the world with top-
quality products including asparagus, apples, cherries, peas, lentils,
wheat--and of course--potatoes. In fact, Washington State is second in
the nation when it comes to potato production, contributing 23 percent
of the nation's potato crop. Additionally, potatoes are the fourth
largest agricultural commodity in Washington, providing jobs for
hundreds of people in Eastern Washington and all across the state. To
that end, I was pleased to join my colleagues this past January in
passing the bipartisan Omnibus spending bill which directed the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to include in the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for WIC a range of fruits and vegetables including
nutritious white potatoes.
Science has proven that fresh white potatoes are more nutrient dense
than many of the vegetables already included in the WIC program and
possess a significant amount of vitamin C and potassium. Despite the
latest research and the clear intention of Congress, the Administrative
has repeatedly fought to exclude white potatoes from the WIC program.
Relying on decades-old consumption data cited in a 2005 Institute of
Medicine report, the Department of Agriculture has arbitrarily limited
this healthy option from the diets of millions of Americans. In fact,
the most current science available, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, recommends greater consumption of starchy vegetables.
Mr. Chair, I believe the exclusion of potatoes in the WIC program is
both scientifically unfounded and unfair to those Americans seeking a
greater variety of healthy food options. I appreciate the work done in
this bill to correct this arbitrary restriction and I urge my
colleagues to support Section 738 of this bill.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, each amendment shall
be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. No pro
forma amendment shall be in order except that the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or their respective
designees, may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point
for the purpose of debate. The chair of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Amendments so printed
shall be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows.

H.R. 4800

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for fiscal year ending September 30, 2015,
and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

Production, Processing, and Marketing

Office of the Secretary

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary,
$41,284,000, of which not to exceed $5,051,000 shall be
available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to
exceed $498,000 shall be available for the Office of Tribal
Relations; not to exceed $1,507,000 shall be available for
the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination;
not to exceed $1,209,000 shall be available for the Office of
Advocacy and Outreach; not to exceed $26,115,000 shall be
available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration, of which $22,811,000 shall be available for
Departmental Administration to provide for necessary expenses
for management support services to offices of the Department
and for general administration, security, repairs and
alterations, and other miscellaneous supplies and expenses
not otherwise provided for and necessary for the practical
and efficient work of the Department; not to exceed
$3,869,000 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out the
programs funded by this Act, including programs involving
intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive
branch; and not to exceed $5,535,000 shall be available for
the Office of Communications: Provided, That the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to transfer funds appropriated for
any office of the Office of the Secretary to any other office
of the Office of the Secretary: Provided further, That no
appropriation for any office shall be increased or decreased
by more than 5 percent: Provided further, That not to exceed
$11,000 of the amount made available under this paragraph for
the immediate Office of the Secretary shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses, not otherwise
provided for, as determined by the Secretary: Provided
further, That the amount made available under this heading
for Departmental Administration shall be reimbursed from
applicable appropriations in this Act for travel expenses
incident to the holding of hearings as required by 5 U.S.C.
551--558: Provided further, That funds made available under
this heading for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Congressional Relations may be transferred to agencies of the
Department of Agriculture funded by this Act to maintain
personnel at the agency level: Provided further, That no
funds made available under this heading for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations may be
obligated after 30 days from the date of enactment of this
Act, unless the Secretary has notified the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on the allocation
of these funds by USDA agency.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Smith of Nebraska). The Clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 14, after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 2, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $5,000,000)''.
Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $5,000,000)''.
Page 43, line 18, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $8,150,000)''.
Page 44, line 2, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $8,150,000)''.
Page 48, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $5,000,000)''.

Ms. LEE of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentlewoman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank our chair
and our ranking member for working with me on this amendment. I
appreciate the bipartisan cooperation. Also, I want to thank our staff
for helping us with this.
This amendment would provide a badly needed increase to the school
breakfast grant program of approximately $8.1 million. The offset for
this amendment is the Secretary's administrative account and the
administrative and expenses account.
These competitive grants allow States, schools, and local educational
agencies to purchase important equipment for their school breakfast
program. The school breakfast program is a critical tool in the fight
to keep our students fed with a nutritious meal at the start of the
day.
Oftentimes, this is the meal that children rely on to help them get
through the day, especially toward the end of the day, when they are
about ready to go home and they have not been fully fed at the
beginning of the day.
The bottom line is breakfast is very, very important to the growth,
health, welfare, and development of our children.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE of California. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, the bill provides $25 million for USDA to

[[Page H5288]]

make the school meal equipment grants. I understand the intent of this
amendment would be to increase the funding to match the President's
request for a total of $35 million. Since there is an acceptable
offset, we would be willing to accept this amount.
Ms. LEE of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is especially
critical for low-income children, many of whom who have not had a
nutritious meal since the previous day of school, so I really
appreciate your support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Thompson of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
Page 2, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000)''.
Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000)''.
Page 6, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

Mr. THOMPSON of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment authored by myself and Mr. Huffman from California.
Our amendment would help support the USDA Office of the Inspector
General by providing them with additional resources to protect our
Nation's food supply.
In February of this year, Rancho Feeding, a slaughterhouse bordering
my district, recalled 8.7 million pounds of beef that it produced in
the year 2013. That is no small recall. Unfortunately, the USDA was
slow to share information about the nature of the recall and what would
happen to the beef already processed by the Rancho facility.
From the beginning of this recall, public safety has been our number
one concern. We can't let food get out that puts the health and safety
of the American people at risk. That is why it is important that the
Office of the Inspector General have the support it needs from Congress
to do its job and ensure our food is safe. This amendment provides them
with that additional support.
Jobs, businesses, and livelihoods are on the line. The longer this
investigation drags on, the more uncertainty businesses face. Following
the results of the investigation, USDA must put in place practices and
procedures that prevent this type of recall from occurring in the
future.
I want to thank my colleague and friend, Mr. Huffman, for working
closely with me on this issue. He and I both represent ranchers
affected by this recall. He has shared my frustration during the past
few months.
If you support protecting our food supply and ensuring the integrity
of USDA programs, then I urge you to support this amendment.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure our food safety
and to make sure that the meat we barbecue this summer doesn't come
with harmful diseases.
It is the responsibility of the inspectors and the oversight agencies
to stop unsafe practices from occurring in the first place and to
proactively address problems before they require massive recalls.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always happen that way. The facility in my
district that is now experiencing a sweeping recall of 8.7 million
pounds of meat does not represent a simple breakdown in the inspection
process.
The Office of the Inspector General has launched a criminal
investigation into improper activities that include deceptive practices
by the owners of the slaughterhouse. We know, from a CNN investigation,
that misconduct may even include some of the very USDA inspectors that
were charged with protecting the public.
This incident clearly demands a serious investigation. The public has
a right to know what happened, how the process broke down, and who will
be held responsible for it. Unfortunately, to date, we have received
virtually no information about this from USDA.
This sweeping recall, coupled with a complete lack of information,
not only shakes public confidence, it affects, in a very serious way,
many of the ranchers in my district whose livelihoods have been harmed.
They deserve answers from the USDA, too.
I have many constituents who are facing serious financial losses, and
they can't get any information about what happened. Many ranchers in
the North Bay had tens of thousands of pounds of their premium beef
recalled, and the USDA won't tell them what happened, whether their
beef was actually contaminated, or even when this case will be closed.
We have gotten far more information, frankly, from CNN than we have
gotten from USDA. This is completely unacceptable.
Our amendment transfers $1 million from the USDA's administrative
account to the inspector general's office, so that we can have the
resources needed to swiftly complete this investigation, close the
case, and make sure we get answers, so that we can prevent this from
happening again.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I was simply asking the gentleman to yield to say we
would accept your language.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Reclaiming my time, thank you very much.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the chairman and ranking member
for cooperating with us and working with us on this very important
matter, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,869,000)''.
Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,869,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because I believe
that government must respect the people that it serves and always
remember that government is a servant of the people.
Several years ago, the Department of Agriculture closed an inspection
station that was incredibly important to the city of Presidio in
Presidio County, Texas.
When I took office some 18 months ago and made inquiries, USDA never
returned phone calls, never made any effort to work with us to
determine why it is that that inspection station was closed.
They refused to work with the city or the county or the local
business community, and so businesses across the area were harmed in a
way that they will never get their money back as a result of all of the
lost business. Presidio was the leading cattle importation port in the
country at the time.
This amendment would zero fund their Office of Congressional
Relations in an attempt to get the attention of the Department of
Agriculture and indicate to them that their behavior is totally,
thoroughly, and completely unacceptable.
People in Presidio, as well as people elsewhere across the Nation,
deserve respect. Those men and women who run businesses and depend on
the cattle

[[Page H5289]]

industry in that part of the State deserve to have their questions
answered.
For the Department to drag its feet for more than 2 years before
giving a simple answer as to why that action was taken by the
Department is totally, thoroughly and completely inexcusable.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would zero fund their Office
of Congressional Relations in an attempt to get their attention.
Having offered the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and made my point, I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Hinojosa

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
Page 2, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,500,000)''.
Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,500,000)''.
Page 13, line 8, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
Page 13, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.

Mr. HINOJOSA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Mike Thompson
from California for joining me on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 4800 is simple. It would increase
funding for the specialty crop pests program at the Department of
Agriculture by $2.5 million in order to provide more funding to
strongly combat the invasive pests that threaten our agriculture
industry.

{time} 1515

From the Mediterranean fruit fly, which attacks fruits and nuts
throughout California, to the imported fire ant that destroys corn and
soybean and okra in Louisiana, the need for this program is higher than
it has ever been.
Nowhere is this more important than in my own congressional district
in south Texas, which is being ravaged by citrus greening. Citrus
greening is one of the most destructive plant diseases in the world.
Once a citrus tree is infected, it produces bitter, unusable fruit and
kills the tree, itself, within a few years. There is no cure, and it
has proven to be difficult to eradicate. As a result, over half of the
trees in every citrus orchard in Florida have contracted this disease.
Right now, both Cameron and Hidalgo Counties, in my district, are under
a full emergency quarantine. This is a growing epidemic that threatens
to eradicate an entire agricultural industry if we do not do everything
we can to stop it.
While I am pleased that the recently passed farm bill included $125
million in funding over a 5-year period to study ways to wipe it out,
that funding is focused on long-term solutions through competitive
grants. The funding for the invasive pest control, which the amendment
would increase, is specifically meant to help deal with the immediate
impacts on the ground today, programs such as coordinated area-wide
suppression programs, pest surveys, protecting disease-free nursery
stock, and public outreach and education programs.
While I am happy that the committee provided a modest increase to
this funding in the underlying bill, I believe this additional funding
is greatly needed to increase our on-the-ground presence to stop the
outbreak in Texas from its alarming spread, which threatens the entire
State. For these reasons, I would urge the support of my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the House bill does provide significant
funding for this project and report language regarding the citrus
growing disease. Mr. Rooney, Mr. Valadao, along with Mr. McCarthy and
Mr. Farr, have raised this issue. We understand how devastating this
disease has been, especially to the Florida growers and, certainly, to
California as well.
The bill, itself, provides $44.5 million for the programs that
protect the citrus industry, so I believe we have addressed the urgency
of the need in this bill. I do accept the gentleman's amendment,
understanding this is a very important issue.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINOJOSA. I thank the gentleman for accepting my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, in my area just a year ago, we went to see
and meet with all of the producers, and they were showing us the
comparison of where we are in Texas as compared to the damage that was
done in Florida and in California. Within less than 6 months, we were
put under quarantine in my area, and we are one of the three largest
citrus growing regions in the whole country--in California, in Florida,
and in deep south Texas--where we grow the Ruby Reds and the Navel
oranges and all of that.
We are really needing it not over a 5-year period--we need to attack
it now. We have the research going on with the Texas A&M University
Research Center in Weslaco, and this money will help us to be able to
stop the damage that has already been done.
I thank you for accepting my amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Executive Operations

office of the chief economist

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Economist, $16,777,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be for
grants or cooperative agreements for policy research under 7
U.S.C. 3155.

national appeals division

For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division,
$13,317,000.

office of budget and program analysis

For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, $9,392,000.

Office of the Chief Information Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, $45,025,000, of which not less than
$22,000,000 is for cybersecurity requirements of the
Department.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, $6,028,000.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 5, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $220,000)''.
Page 6, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $220,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the simplest of
amendments.
This amendment transfers $220,000 from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's wasteful and ineffective Office of the chief financial
officer to the Department's Office of Inspector General, bringing their
appropriations in line with the President's request. It seems only
fitting that the inspector general's office receive additional
resources, particularly at the expense of the office it will most
likely first investigate.
In April of this year, the inspector general reported that the
Department's chief financial officer failed to comply with the Improper
Payments Information Act for the third year in a row. The CFO would
have saved more than $415 million by simply following Federal law and
ensuring certain programs met their spending reduction goals. Instead,
the CFO continued to turn a

[[Page H5290]]

blind eye, and the inspector general reported that, last year alone,
the USDA made $6.2 billion in improper payments. Let me repeat that:
$6.2 billion in improper payments were made by the USDA last year
alone. I would like to provide a few examples of this wasteful
spending.
In fiscal year 2013, the USDA paid more than $50 million to special
interest groups to promote Christmas. The USDA's chief financial
officer authorized a loan to a well-established brewing company for
over $450,000. The USDA spent $20 million on IT software that did not
work. On the chief financial officer's watch, $403,627 was wasted last
year on a study to see if we could turn cow manure into electricity.
Over 100 people received loan guarantees of $500,000 or more to buy a
home in Hawaii. This ``Hawaiian beachfront property'' loan program lost
nearly $500 million last year according to the Office of Inspector
General.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ADERHOLT. We will accept your amendment.
Mr. GOSAR. We will accept the gentleman's proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights, $898,000.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 5, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $5,000)''.
Page 7, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $5,000)''.
Page 12, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000)''.
Page 18, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000)''.
Page 20, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $5,000)''.
Page 25, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000)''.
Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000)''.
Page 43, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000)''.
Page 82, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $40,000)''.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman
from Georgia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply gathers the
arbitrary budget increases of $5,000 added to seven under secretaries'
offices and one assistant secretary's office, totaling $40,000, and it
applies that amount to the spending reduction account.
What would a $5,000 increase to the budget of the office of an under
secretary even pay for? Would it pay for one taxpayer-funded trip? for
pencils? for paper clips? maybe pay raises to the Federal bureaucrats
to implement the nearly $1 trillion new farm bill?
According to the Web site wallstcheatsheet.com, a person can start a
business for $5,000 or less in overhead; but, Mr. Chairman, the Federal
Government is not a business, and it does not run like one,
unfortunately, as $5,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the
accounts we are considering today.
This increase is a symbol of this government's out-of-control
spending. Both political parties are guilty. If Congress can't cut
$40,000, then we are facing the root of our spending problem--thousands
of dollars can quickly add up to millions, which would soon become
billions, and all the while, Congress keeps approving more and more
even when there is no good reason for the increase.
The American people have demanded that we cut the outrageous spending
that is going on here in Washington by Republicans and Democrats alike.
We must look to every corner of the budget to do so. We must become
better stewards of taxpayers' dollars, and this amendment is one small
step in that right direction.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern for
the Federal deficit and the debt problem that we are facing in this
Nation. It is something that is very serious, and I appreciate his hard
work on this issue. I know that he is very concerned, as we all are,
about it.
I am going to have to reluctantly oppose the amendment. We have
carefully reviewed the President's budget request, and we believe that
we have appropriately and adequately funded the various mission areas
within the Department of Agriculture, and because of that, as I say, I
will oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Civil Rights

For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$24,070,000.

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities

For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to
Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984
delegation of authority from the Administrator of General
Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C.
121, for programs and activities of the Department which are
included in this Act, and for alterations and other actions
needed for the Department and its agencies to consolidate
unneeded space into configurations suitable for release to
the Administrator of General Services, and for the operation,
maintenance, improvement, and repair of Agriculture buildings
and facilities, and for related costs, $54,825,000, to remain
available until expended, for building operations and
maintenance expenses: Provided, That the Secretary may use
unobligated prior year balances of an agency or office that
are no longer available for new obligation to cover
shortfalls incurred in prior year rental payments for such
agency or office.

Hazardous Materials Management

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to
comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.), $3,600,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That appropriations and funds available herein to
the Department for Hazardous Materials Management may be
transferred to any agency of the Department for its use in
meeting all requirements pursuant to the above Acts on
Federal and non-Federal lands.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
including employment pursuant to the Inspector General Act of
1978, $97,020,000, including such sums as may be necessary
for contracting and other arrangements with public agencies
and private persons pursuant to section 6(a)(9) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978, and including not to exceed
$125,000 for certain confidential operational expenses,
including the payment of informants, to be expended under the
direction of the Inspector General pursuant to Public Law 95-
452 and section 1337 of Public Law 97-98.

Office of the General Counsel

For necessary expenses of the Office of the General
Counsel, $44,383,000.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H5291]]

Page 7, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,181,000)''.
Page 82, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,181,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer another amendment to the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015.
This amendment pertains to the Department of Agriculture's Office of
General Counsel.
By way of background, this office was appropriated $41,202,000 in
fiscal year 2014. The President's budget for FY15 requested a steep
increase of $6,365,000. The President attempts to justify this 15.4
percent increase by saying that these moneys will go towards: ``31
full-time equivalents to handle an increased workload, to support
current staff, rent, and enhance OGC's information technology reporting
capabilities and litigation management tools.'' In other words, most of
that money will be used to hire both government attorneys and to give
raises to government attorneys already on staff.
You see, because I am from the Western States, I take issue with
that.
I represent a rural district in western Arizona, and I serve on the
House Natural Resources Committee, which oversees much of the executive
branch's activities with regard to resources and lands. I am quite
familiar with the effects government attorneys often have on States,
their resources, and their lands, and my colleagues and I are generally
disgusted with the overreaching policies the Obama administration has
imposed on Western States. Therefore, I oppose any plans by the
Department to hire more government attorneys, many of whom will be used
to implement and defend the administration's overreaching landgrabs,
watergrabs, and climate change policies.
I appreciate that this committee decided not to fulfill the
President's request in full, but it did propose appropriating roughly
half of his request. I simply cannot, in good conscience, allow more
attorneys to be hired at the USDA--attorneys who will infringe upon
many States' 10th Amendment rights.
My amendment proposes to cut most of the increase the Appropriations
Committee has offered in this bill, but it leaves a portion of the
increase for the sole purpose of improving the informational technology
of the Office of the General Counsel.

{time} 1530

I understand the Federal Government generally has major issues with
information technology. Our departments and agencies are often using
archaic IT systems and many should be updated for efficiency and
security purposes.
IT issues are often highlighted at my other committee assignment on
the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. This a bipartisan
issue and has been addressed regularly by Chairman Issa, Ranking Member
Cummings, and the rest of my colleagues.
To close, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It would
help to reserve States' rights, curb executive branch overreach, cut
spending, and improve information technology systems all at once.
As always, I appreciate the work of the committee, particularly the
work of the chair and the ranking member.
I urge passage of my commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, again, I appreciate the gentleman's concern
for the Federal debt, the deficit problem that we are facing in this
Nation. Again, it is a very serious issue, and we need to address it in
many ways.
However, I would have to oppose this amendment, reluctantly. We have
carefully reviewed the President's budget, the request that he has
made, and we have tried to appropriately and adequately fund the
mission areas within the Department of Agriculture.
For that reason, again, we would have to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate the government's
overreach, particularly in Western States. With due respect, this
budget does not look at the appropriate utilization of funds for
attorneys. And when you look at the overreach of this administration
with climate change, with water, and with resources, it is about time
that we made conscious use of attorneys' fees.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Jolly). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Ethics

For necessary expenses of the Office of Ethics, $3,440,000.

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Research, Education, and Economics, $898,000.

Economic Research Service

For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service,
$85,784,000.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 7, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,000,000)''.
Page 43, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 44, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the
Kelly-Cohen-Titus amendment to increase funding to the Summer
Electronic Benefit Transfer program.
For many young people, the end of school is an exciting day, and they
get out for the summer. But for the millions of children and families
who rely on school lunch for meals, the summer months are a time of
stress, anxiety, and hunger when those meals disappear.
The Summer Food Service Program, created by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, provides free, nutritious meals and snacks to help
children get the nutrition they need to learn, play, and grow
throughout the summer months when they are out of school.
Last Monday, I joined the Summer Food Kickoff at Emerald Square in
Memphis in support of this program. I had the opportunity to speak with
kids, watch them in delight as they ate their lunch and listened to
them read books provided by Dolly Parton's Imagination Library.
This amendment would increase the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer
for Children program by $3 million. The project allows USDA to study
alternative approaches to providing food assistance to low-income
children in urban and rural districts through the summer months.
Additional funding to this program for children would not only reduce
childhood hunger when school is out and encourage healthier eating but
allow us to learn more about food insecurity among children and the
best approaches to reducing it long-term.
The wealthiest Nation of the world should not send its children to
bed hungry, so making sure they have the food they need must be a top
priority.
This program helps fill the gap when students are not in school,
providing meals for many children that would otherwise go hungry in
Memphis, Chicago, Las Vegas, and throughout the Nation.
By increasing funding to this program, we can be sure we are feeding
our kids a healthy meal each day. I urge passage of the amendment to
restore funding to the Summer Food Service Program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).
Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the gentleman
from

[[Page H5292]]

Tennessee and the gentlewoman from Nevada to offer a commonsense
amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Act that would ensure that
this summer, when students walk away from their classroom, they don't
walk into homes and communities that allow them to go hungry.
Most of us can remember the excitement of the last day of school. But
too many of us forget the fact that, for millions of children in rural,
suburban, and urban communities, the summer months, when you no longer
have lunchtime in the cafeteria, are often the hungriest time of the
year.
Our amendment is a fiscally responsible effort to be there for our
kids while providing funds for the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer
for Children program, which will help the USDA offer responsible
solutions that respond to the food security needs of children across
our Nation.
When children wake up in Illinois and feel the same exact hunger as
kids in Memphis, Las Vegas, and the Speaker's district, we are doing
something wrong. I urge my colleagues to work in a bipartisan manner
and put kids first and pass this amendment.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms.
Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleagues,
Representatives Kelly and Cohen, to introduce this amendment to
increase the summer food program for children by $3 million.
Across the country, one of every five children is at risk of going
hungry. In Nevada, more than 233,000 children qualify for free or
reduced lunch. That means that 54 percent of Nevada's students come
from low-income households that struggle with hunger.
While these children can eat free and reduced-price lunch during the
school year, the vast majority are left without adequate nutrition
during the summer.
The Summer EBT program is a pilot program that helps fill this gap by
providing eligible families with additional SNAP benefits during the
summer months. It works.
In 2012, it served almost 67,000 children who might have otherwise
gone hungry. The participation in this program is dramatically higher
than in other programs, serving up to 75 percent of eligible children.
That is why I believe that we should meet the President's budget
request and increase funding to feed as many hungry children as
possible. A vacation from school shouldn't mean a hungry child.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 7, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $7,726,000)''.
Page 82, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,726,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman
from Georgia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that
would reduce the funding for the USDA's Economic Research Service by
$7,726,000 and increase the spending reduction account by that same
amount.
This amendment would maintain, I repeat, maintain current funding
levels, while helping to end the duplicative research the USDA is
currently conducting.
The Economic Research Service makes social science inquiries into the
nutritional choices of citizens, as well as farmers' decisions to
participate in risk management programs. According to the USDA, this
program is ``the primary source of statistical indicators of the farm
sector,'' and it is the only USDA research agency based entirely in
D.C., according to the Congressional Research Service.
However, there is a second agency within the USDA, the National
Agricultural Statistics Agency, which serves essentially the same
purpose. This agency is funded at $169,371,000 in this bill.
But wait, Mr. Chairman. The underlying bill also provides $1.2
billion in mandatory spending for research, education, and economics
studies, the same function as the Economic Research Service and the
National Agricultural Statistics Agency.
Mr. Chairman, we are in an economic and fiscal emergency. The Federal
Government spends too much money. It is irresponsible to keep spending
money beyond our means. Not only do we need to reduce our deficit, but
we need to begin to make an impact on eliminating the huge debt that
has been accumulating over the last several years.
I applaud the Appropriations Committee for bringing to the floor five
appropriations bills in roughly the same number of weeks. In fact, we
haven't seen this particular bill here in the House since 2011.
I offered a similar amendment to this one during the consideration of
that bill, to cut $7 million from the Economic Research Service.
So I ask my colleagues, let's try again. Let's cut the duplicative
spending that is in this bill for that agency. Let's make meaningful
cuts to show the American people that we are serious about controlling
spending and serious about the future of our country. I urge support of
my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's desire to cut,
squeeze, and trim and be a deficit hawk, but I think you are really
cutting the wrong area.
There are a lot of statistical departments in the Department of
Agriculture because it is involved with a lot of different issues, sort
of the whole rural economics of America, all the trade issues.
You have got two departments. You have got one that does the big data
and one that does the small data.
You are a doctor of medicine, and it would be like comparing an MRI
to a thermometer. They both are diagnostic tools but they don't do the
same things. And neither does ERS or NAS.
You stated they seem like they duplicate. No, they are both involved
in economic research, and I don't know how to explain it all, but it is
the underlying data that drives everything, drives all the markets,
drives decisionmaking. The growers are private sector capitalists, if
you will, having to borrow from a banking system. They all have to have
good data in order to make decisions.

{time} 1545

I think, if you squeeze and trim these economic data collectors, you
are really hurting the underlying economy of agriculture in the United
States, so I would oppose your amendment.
We need crop data. We need market data. We need nutritional data. We
need rural economy data, and these are the agencies, particularly the
ERS that you are cutting, that collects that, so I oppose the
amendment.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank my friend for yielding.
In this bill, we are appropriating $1.2 billion of mandatory spending
to gather data for research education and economic studies.
Is there any reason why, within that $1.2 billion of getting data,
that they cannot do the same function as we are with the Economic
Research Service?
Mr. FARR. Well, I am not sure that I understand the gentleman's
question, but there are different kinds of data, and there are
different places that you collect that data, as there is in everything
we do in government and the private sector.
I think what you are doing, I mean, you are taking a program--if you
just kind of open the book and look at government and find all these
areas where you think there is duplication, I think that the next step
is to go and find out exactly where there is waste.
Everybody is against--and we do trim waste because we are always
looking for money, but this is not the place. There is no trim there.
It doesn't get you anything. In fact, it hurts the

[[Page H5293]]

users of that data, not being able to have it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

National Agricultural Statistics Service

For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural
Statistics Service, $169,371,000, of which up to $47,842,000
shall be available until expended for the Census of
Agriculture: Provided, That amounts made available for the
Census of Agriculture may be used to conduct Current
Industrial Report surveys subject to 7 U.S.C. 2204g(d) and
(f).

Agricultural Research Service

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Agricultural Research Service
and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or
purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, and for land
exchanges where the lands exchanged shall be of equal value
or shall be equalized by a payment of money to the grantor
which shall not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the
land or interests transferred out of Federal ownership,
$1,120,253,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall
be available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft
and the purchase of not to exceed one for replacement only:
Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be
available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for the construction,
alteration, and repair of buildings and improvements, but
unless otherwise provided, the cost of constructing any one
building shall not exceed $375,000, except for headhouses or
greenhouses which shall each be limited to $1,200,000, and
except for 10 buildings to be constructed or improved at a
cost not to exceed $750,000 each, and the cost of altering
any one building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10
percent of the current replacement value of the building or
$375,000, whichever is greater: Provided further, That the
limitations on alterations contained in this Act shall not
apply to modernization or replacement of existing facilities
at Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available for granting
easements at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center:
Provided further, That the foregoing limitations shall not
apply to replacement of buildings needed to carry out the Act
of April 24, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 113a): Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available for granting
easements at any Agricultural Research Service location for
the construction of a research facility by a non-Federal
entity for use by, and acceptable to, the Agricultural
Research Service and a condition of the easements shall be
that upon completion the facility shall be accepted by the
Secretary, subject to the availability of funds herein, if
the Secretary finds that acceptance of the facility is in the
interest of the United States: Provided further, That funds
may be received from any State, other political subdivision,
organization, or individual for the purpose of establishing
or operating any research facility or research project of the
Agricultural Research Service, as authorized by law.

buildings and facilities

For the acquisition of land, construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities as necessary to carry out the
agricultural research programs of the Department of
Agriculture, where not otherwise provided, $155,000,000 to
remain available until expended.

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

research and education activities

For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for
cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and
for other expenses, $774,465,000, which shall be for the
purposes, and in the amounts, specified in the table titled
``National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Research and
Education Activities'' in the report accompanying this Act:
Provided, That funds for research grants for 1994
institutions, education grants for 1890 institutions, the
agriculture and food research initiative, veterinary medicine
loan repayment, multicultural scholars, graduate fellowship
and institution challenge grants, and grants management
systems shall remain available until expended: Provided
further, That each institution eligible to receive funds
under the Evans-Allen program receives no less than
$1,000,000: Provided further, That funds for education grants
for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions be
made available to individual eligible institutions or
consortia of eligible institutions with funds awarded equally
to each of the States of Alaska and Hawaii: Provided further,
That funds for education grants for 1890 institutions shall
be made available to institutions eligible to receive funds
under 7 U.S.C. 3221 and 3222: Provided further, That not more
than 5 percent of the amounts made available by this or any
other Act to carry out the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative under 7 U.S.C. 450i(b) may be retained by the
Secretary of Agriculture to pay administrative costs incurred
by the Secretary in carrying out that authority.

native american institutions endowment fund

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund
authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note),
$11,880,000, to remain available until expended.

extension activities

For payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, the Northern
Marianas, and American Samoa, $467,339,000, which shall be
for the purposes, and in the amounts, specified in the table
titled ``National Institute of Food and Agriculture,
Extension Activities'' in the report accompanying this Act:
Provided, That funds for facility improvements at 1890
institutions shall remain available until expended: Provided
further, That institutions eligible to receive funds under 7
U.S.C. 3221 for cooperative extension receive no less than
$1,000,000: Provided further, That funds for cooperative
extension under sections 3(b) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act
(7 U.S.C. 343(b) and (c)) and section 208(c) of Public Law
93-471 shall be available for retirement and employees'
compensation costs for extension agents.

integrated activities

For the integrated research, education, and extension
grants programs, including necessary administrative expenses,
$32,000,000, which shall be for the purposes, and in the
amounts, specified in the table titled ``National Institute
of Food and Agriculture, Integrated Activities'' in the
report accompanying this Act: Provided, That funds for the
Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative shall remain
available until September 30, 2016.

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, $898,000.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

salaries and expenses

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, including up to $30,000 for
representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to the
Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4085), $867,505,000,
of which $470,000, to remain available until expended, shall
be available for the control of outbreaks of insects, plant
diseases, animal diseases and for control of pest animals and
birds (contingency fund) to the extent necessary to meet
emergency conditions; of which $11,520,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be used for the cotton pests
program for cost share purposes or for debt retirement for
active eradication zones; of which $35,339,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be for Animal Health
Technical Services; of which $697,000 shall be for activities
under the authority of the Horse Protection Act of 1970, as
amended (15 U.S.C. 1831); of which $52,340,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be used to support avian
health; of which $4,251,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be for information technology infrastructure;
of which $156,500,000, to remain available until expended,
shall be for specialty crop pests; of which, $8,826,000, to
remain available until expended, shall be for field crop and
rangeland ecosystem pests; of which $47,417,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be for tree and wood pests;
of which $4,222,000, to remain available until expended,
shall be for the National Veterinary Stockpile; of which up
to $1,500,000, to remain available until expended, shall be
for the scrapie program for indemnities; of which $1,500,000,
to remain available until expended, shall be for the wildlife
damage management program for aviation safety: Provided, That
of amounts available under this heading for wildlife services
methods development, $1,000,000 shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That of amounts available under
this heading for the screwworm program, $4,990,000 shall
remain available until expended: Provided further, That no
funds shall be used to formulate or administer a brucellosis
eradication program for the current fiscal year that does not
require minimum matching by the States of at least 40
percent: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be
available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft and
the purchase of not to exceed four, of which two shall be for
replacement only: Provided further, That in addition, in
emergencies which threaten any segment of the agricultural
production industry of this country, the Secretary may
transfer from other appropriations or funds available to the
agencies or corporations of the Department such sums as may
be deemed necessary, to be available only in such emergencies
for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious
disease or pests of animals, poultry, or plants, and for
expenses in accordance with sections 10411 and 10417 of the
Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8310 and 8316) and
sections 431 and 442 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
7751 and 7772), and any unexpended balances of funds
transferred for such emergency purposes in the preceding
fiscal year

[[Page H5294]]

shall be merged with such transferred amounts: Provided
further, That appropriations hereunder shall be available
pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration
of leased buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise
provided the cost of altering any one building during the
fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the current
replacement value of the building.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

k Page 13, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, for decades, there has been a growing
debate among marine biologists and other professionals over maintaining
marine mammals in captivity, but it was last year's release of the
documentary ``Blackfish'' that spurred a broader public discussion over
whether the conditions in which marine mammals, particularly orcas, are
held for public display are humane and whether these animals should
even be held in captivity.
I have serious concerns about the psychological and physical harm to
orcas and other large marine mammals in captivity. Isolating these
animals--which can travel hundreds of miles in a day in the wild and
which live in large, complex social groupings--in a small enclosure is
troubling.
There is substantial evidence that orcas in captivity live much
shorter lives than those in the wild and display high levels of stress
and aberrant and sometimes dangerous behavior.
Two weeks ago, Representative Huffman and I, along with 38 of our
colleagues, sent a letter to the Department of Agriculture, urging them
to move forward with a rulemaking regarding conditions of captivity for
marine mammals under the Animal Welfare Act.
Twenty years ago, the Department recognized the need to revise
regulations. Ten years ago, the Department proposed such a rulemaking
and received many public comments. Since then, progress has stalled,
despite the public outcry about this issue.
Our amendment would serve to kick-start that effort by providing $1
million for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to study the
effect of captivity on large marine mammals, so that USDA can follow
through with proposing a rule that is long overdue.
Among the issues that would benefit from an unbiased examination by
APHIS are the effects of captivity on the longevity of marine mammals,
whether they suffer from physical and mental maladies at a higher rate
than animals in the wild and whether they display unnatural and
unhealthy behaviors indicating high levels of stress.
The finding of this study will inform the USDA's consideration of
reopening a rulemaking process, which could result in scientifically-
based regulations that ensure humane conditions for these awe-inspiring
animals.
The amendment does not change existing rules and regulations.
Instead, we are calling on the USDA to gather all scientific evidence
and propose a rule that has been 20 years in the making. I urge
adoption of the amendment.
At this point, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Huffman), who is a leader on this issue.
Mr. HUFFMAN. I thank my colleague from southern California for his
leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, like many people, I did a lot of reflecting after I saw
the documentary ``Blackfish.'' Specifically, I looked into whether our
Federal authorities were using the most updated science-based
information in their regulation of marine mammal captivity.
I was disappointed to find that our government has done virtually
nothing to update these regulations in the last two decades.
APHIS, the agency charged with this responsibility, has not updated
the Animal Welfare Act regulations since 1995, and these rules should
have been updated 10 years ago, when APHIS opened up a rulemaking
process. Unfortunately, they dropped the ball, so it is time to try
again.
As Congressman Schiff mentioned, we recently led a sign-on letter
with three dozen of our colleagues to Agriculture Secretary Vilsack,
demanding action on that issue.
In that letter, we urged him to complete the updating of these
regulations for captive marine mammals, including publishing the
proposed rule and allowing a public comment period, so that we can
incorporate the latest science.
We have had no response to that letter, so today, we are offering an
amendment to provide APHIS with the funding needed to start that
process again and ensure that our regulations for captive orcas and
other marine mammals are based on modern science.
This amendment reminds APHIS that inaction is unacceptable. The
agency must use the funds provided to ensure that we have on the books
the best possible standards for captive marine mammals based on solid
modern science and informed by all of the information that we have
gleaned in the past two decades.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

In fiscal year 2015, the agency is authorized to collect
fees to cover the total costs of providing technical
assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other
political subdivisions, domestic and international
organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided
that such fees are structured such that any entity's
liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical
assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the
agency, and such fees shall be reimbursed to this account, to
remain available until expended, without further
appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or
services.

buildings and facilities

For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance,
environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration,
and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized
by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 428a, $3,175,000, to remain available until expended.

Agricultural Marketing Service

marketing services

For necessary expenses of the Agricultural Marketing
Service, $81,192,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall
be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the
alteration and repair of buildings and improvements, but the
cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year
shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value
of the building.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Royce

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 16, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $15,500,000)''.
Page 48, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROYCE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman and the ranking
member for the work that they have done to bring this bill to the
floor, but this bill can be improved.
There is growing bipartisan support for improving our international
food assistance to ensure that more people are helped for less money.
Unfortunately, this bill fails to advance international food aid
reform, and it actually reverses progress achieved in the 2014 farm
bill, legislation enacted by this body just a few months ago.
It fails to provide flexibility, so that up to 25 percent of the Food
for Peace title II budget would be exempt from U.S. purchase
requirements. If enacted, this proposal would have generated over $100
million in efficiency savings and enabled the United States to reach an
additional 2 million people in dire need of food aid. An effective
international food aid program helps those in need, and it strengthens
our international security.

[[Page H5295]]

Finally, the bill fails to fund a congressionally authorized, broadly
supported Local and Regional Procurement program. Following upon a
successful pilot, the 2014 farm bill authorized $80 million per year
for the Local and Regional Procurement program.
That means we can buy food closer to the area in crisis, reducing
transit time by more than 10 weeks, reducing the cost per food aid
recipient by 20 to 30 percent. This was considered an important reform
that won, again, broad bipartisan support.
This amendment contains a modest shift in funding that will have a
major impact, $10 million, while reducing funds for the administration
of marketing and promotion programs that benefit major corporations. We
can save lives. It is an easy choice.
Mr. Chairman, our food aid takes too long to arrive and costs too
much to get there. A former top aid official told our committee that:

In fast onset famines, such as Somalia in 1991-1992, and
wars involving mass population displacement, such as in
Darfur in 2003 and 2004, I watched people die waiting for
food arrive.

Obviously, he strongly backs this reform.
Lastly, I recently traveled to the Philippines and witnessed
firsthand the impact that LRP can have. Devastated by a powerful
typhoon and left with virtually nothing, the people of Tacloban did not
have the luxury of time to wait for U.S. food aid to arrive from
warehouses in Sri Lanka.
In fact, it took more than 3 weeks for those shipments to arrive, but
with local and regional procurement, we were able to start helping
people right away, and we saved lives.
I would say, in Syria, where the delivery of U.S. food is nearly
impossible, the combination of vouchers with local and regional
purchase is the only viable option.
It is time to make a change. This requires $10 million. Vote ``yes,''
please, on the Royce amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California (Mr. Royce)
has been working at this issue for a very long time, and he has
considerable knowledge and certainly a compassion and a deep
understanding of these issues. There is far more to this than was
explained in your presentation.
There is an ongoing debate about how the United States ought to be
assisting in the disasters and famines around the world. That debate
came to a head last year in which it was decided that we ought to
continue with the longstanding appeal for a Food for Peace program,
with some modifications.
My concern here with this particular amendment is that it may open
the door for a continuation of that debate and ultimately lead to the
demise of the P.L. 480 program, which has extraordinary political
support as a result of the combination of American farmers, the
merchant marine industry, as well as many NGOs around the Nation.
I recognize that, in many places, it is necessary to have local
purchases of food, and the chairman actually cited a couple of those
examples. It turned out that the local purchase of food was
accomplished through an existing program that USAID presently has, and
that program is the international disaster assistance program, where
money is available for the local purchase of food.
The bottom line is that this $10 million really doesn't add anything
that isn't already available in the current appropriation--in the
current bill, so I would say let's not go down this road right now.
Let's not open up this door to what may very well be a very extensive
debate that we have already had, so I would softly oppose the
amendment.
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee on the other side of the
aisle.
Mr. FINCHER. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This
amendment would essentially duplicate an existing program already in
place at the U.S. Agency for International Development under the
international development assistance account.

{time} 1600

USAID already allows for local and regional purchases so there is no
need for the same program at the USDA.
More importantly, this amendment would use taxpayer dollars to
purchase commodities from foreign countries rather than right here at
home. Unlike other foreign aid programs, the Food for Peace program is
American-made through and through. It was designed to take American
commodities on American ships overseas to feed those in need.
The Food for Peace program supports American agriculture, exports,
and jobs while increasing goodwill overseas and helping those in need.
The USDA estimates that for every $1 billion in U.S. agricultural
exports, 8,400 American jobs are created. We need to be focused on
creating jobs here at home and growing our economy so the United States
is able to be abundantly generous to countries that can't grow enough
food to feed their growing populations.
This amendment gives away American tax dollars to our foreign
competitors and puts American jobs at risk. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment and support American farmers, workers, and
taxpayers.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Mr. Royce's
amendment. I want to work with him on an offset that I think might be a
little more desirable.
But the notion here somehow that we are going to undercut the reforms
that were achieved in the farm bill that require food, on average, to
take 74 days longer, when you use U.S.-sourced commodities, when it is
going to be, on average, 25 percent more expensive, and to talk about
our ``foreign competitors,'' when we are talking about being able to
purchase locally from people who are on the edge of impoverishment,
rather than flooding American commodities that are more expensive late
in the game and undercutting local production, I think is a sad step
forward.
I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and strongly urge support of
this as we work for a better offset.
Mr. ROYCE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROYCE. In closing, I would just say that I am open to working
with the chairman and ranking member to find an appropriate offset in
conference. However, it is essential to adopt this amendment now so
that this matter can be set, we can put a marker down, and get this in
place. I thank the gentleman for the support for the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Valadao) having assumed the chair, Mr. Jolly, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4800)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________