[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22471-22480]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3161, AGRICULTURE, RURAL 
    DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 599 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 599

       Resolved,  That during further consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 3161) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2008, and for other purposes, the bill shall be considered as 
     read. No further debate on any pending amendment shall be in 
     order. A further period of general debate shall be confined 
     to the bill and shall not exceed 30 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Appropriations. The amendments printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House 
     and in the Committee of the Whole. Notwithstanding clause 11 
     of rule XVIII, no further amendment shall be in order except 
     those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. After a motion that the Committee rise has been 
     rejected on a legislative day, the Chair may entertain 
     another such motion on that day only if offered by the 
     chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the Majority 
     Leader or designee. After a motion to strike out the enacting 
     words of the bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII) 
     has been rejected, the Chair may not entertain another such 
     motion during further consideration of the bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The gentleman from Massachusetts 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California, my very good, good friend, Mr. Dreier. All time yielded 
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 599.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 599 provides for further 
consideration of the FY 2008 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in strong 
support of the underlying bill.
  I want to thank my dear friend from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, the 
chairwoman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for her work 
on this bill and her passion for fighting hunger in this country and 
around the world. I also want to commend Ranking Member Kingston and 
Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for all of their efforts and 
their hard work.
  I very much regret that we have gotten to this point. I do not take 
the idea of structuring debate on appropriation bills lightly. 
Unfortunately, we have gotten to the point where structuring debate on 
the Agriculture appropriations bill is the only way to pass the bill 
before we break for the district work period.
  As the distinguished majority leader so eloquently noted the other 
day, we have spent hours and hours and hours, beyond historical norms, 
to complete our work on the appropriations bills. Last June, Democratic 
and Republican leaders came to an agreement that, in exchange for 
allowing full and fair debate with up or down votes on dozens of 
amendments, Republicans would allow the appropriation bills to proceed 
through the House. We have been able to come to unanimous consents to 
consider those bills, and they have largely passed with large 
bipartisan majorities.
  Now, I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle 
were upset with the process used to consider the SCHIP bill, and after 
our discussion in the Rules Committee last night,

[[Page 22472]]

I understand their concerns. But they have decided to use that 
frustration as an excuse to prevent completion of our important 
appropriations work, and we do not believe that that is in the best 
interest of the Nation. Clearly, my friends on the other side have 
decided to abandon the June agreement, and that is their right. But it 
is our responsibility, in the majority, to complete these bills in a 
timely way.
  Unfortunately, it has become clear that a small number of Members on 
the other side was willing to use a filibuster-by-amendment strategy to 
shut down the House and prevent us from completing our work. Mr. 
Speaker, if Members wish to filibuster bills, they should run for the 
United States Senate.
  There is a difference between serious legislating and obstructionism. 
And I believe that offering amendments to cut bills by $50,000 and then 
$100,000 and then $101,000 and so on, and debating these bills forever 
and ever and ever and using procedural mechanisms to unjustifiably 
delay the consideration of bills, not to move serious legislation 
forward, but to delay the consideration of bills, I think that's 
obstructionism. And I think what we saw on the floor the other day was 
obstructionism.
  This rule makes in order 12 amendments, all of them Republican 
amendments on a variety of issues. Many of what I would call the 
``usual suspect'' amendments were made in order, amendments by members 
of the Republican Study Committee to cut certain programs in the bill, 
an amendment to cut funding across the board, an amendment from my good 
friend, Mr. Flake, to eliminate earmarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I also regret that tensions have risen over the last 
several days. Perhaps it's inevitable before a break, and perhaps it's 
the heat and humidity, but I hope that all of us can come back after 
Labor Day refreshed and rededicated to doing the people's business in a 
civil way.
  Mr. Speaker, Hillary Clinton says ``it takes a village.'' Maybe for 
us it takes a recess. In this business, your word is everything; 
without it, there is no trust. And without any trust, this would be a 
very, very unhappy place to work.
  I thought we had a very good discussion in the Rules Committee last 
night. I believe we understand each other and where we're coming from a 
bit better. I know my friend, Mr. Dreier, and other members of the 
Rules Committee are eager to look for ways that we can make this 
process better. They have my word and I think the word of all of us on 
the Democratic side that we want to work with them to make that happen.
  In the meantime, however, we have a responsibility to do the people's 
business. And the rule before us allows us to do that in an orderly way 
that allows for vigorous debate and votes on amendments.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I begin by expressing my great appreciation to my friend from 
Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  I have to ask myself exactly why it is that we are here. One might 
think that this is Groundhog Day. We've already passed a rule on the 
Agriculture appropriations bill, and I would say to my friend, we've 
already passed the so-called SCHIP bill, which proposes a cut for 
seniors on the Medicare program and a massive tax increase for people 
all across this country and perpetuates this generational warfare 
challenge. That bill is behind us.
  We have not had a single dilatory motion that I've seen since passage 
of this SCHIP legislation, and yet the Rules Committee chose last night 
to do something that, from all of the research that we have done, has 
never been done in the history of the Republic.
  It is true that on occasion we have, after lengthy debate, come back 
with second rules when we were in the majority. For example, in 1995, 
we came back with a rule on the Interior appropriations bill that, by 
the definition of the new majority, would have been defined as an open 
rule. It simply said there would be a preprinting requirement that was 
put in order for all of the other amendments that would be offered 
during the measure.
  Mr. Speaker, never before have we seen a rule on an appropriations 
bill come from the Rules Committee to the floor that self-executes one 
amendment. But this rule doesn't self-execute one amendment; it self-
executes six amendments. This has never, ever been done.
  We did, as my friend from Worcester said, have an interesting long 
discussion last night. We were here until nearly 3:30 in the morning 
yesterday, and then we had a lengthy discussion as we were waiting for 
votes here on the floor last night up in the Rules Committee. And I 
talked about the fact and my colleagues on our side talked about the 
fact that this was unprecedented. And Mr. Hastings, the gentleman from 
Fort Lauderdale, said, oh, well, will the world come to an end? The 
world isn't going to come to an end. But one of the great privileges 
that I have is working with our colleague, David Price, on our House 
Democracy Assistance Commission. And we are, right now, engaged with 12 
new and reemerging democracies around the world. I like to argue that 
one election a democracy does not make.
  It's really hard work building democracies. And in countries like 
Lebanon, Afghanistan, Liberia, Kenya, Macedonia, the Republic of 
Georgia, the Ukraine, Haiti, Colombia, East Timor, Indonesia, Mongolia, 
countries that are moving towards democracy or have relatively young 
democracies, we have been working with their new parliaments because we 
know how important it is to have parliaments that have committee 
structure, oversight of the executive branch, libraries, members who 
can work to provide constituent services. That's what this 20-member 
Commission that David Price now chairs, and I'm privileged to serve as 
the ranking minority member on, has been working on.
  What we've done, Mr. Speaker, is we've said we have a 220-year 
history in the United States House of Representatives. We don't claim 
to have a corner on the truth, we don't know exactly how it's done, but 
we do have experience. And Mr. Speaker, it saddens me greatly that as 
we continue to work with these new and reemerging democracies for these 
countries that are just beginning to have a taste of political 
pluralism, the rule of law, and the opportunity to build democratic 
institutions, that we, today, are once again restricting the 
opportunity that the minority has had.
  I will say that my friend has talked about breaking an agreement. You 
know, there was an agreement, a bond that was talked about in last 
year's election and a bond that was made with the opening speech that 
was delivered by my California colleague, the gentlewoman from San 
Francisco, our new Speaker, the first woman Speaker of the House of 
Representatives. I regularly laud the fact that she has done that, the 
first Californian and the first Italian American. I am very proud as a 
Californian.

                              {time}  1415

  But I will tell you that commitment was made on the opening day, and 
has been made repeatedly, by my very good friend from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader, time and time again. We have 
continued to hear about this promise that we will have a great new 
sense of openness. We will have transparency. We will have 
accountability. We will have the things to which we all supposedly 
aspire. But what is it we have gotten here, Mr. Speaker?
  As bad as you all say that we were when we were in the majority, as 
bad as the now majority says that we were, Mr. Speaker, when we were in 
the majority, we would have never contemplated self-executing five 
amendments in a rule for an appropriations bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I'm sorry, but the record shows that in the year 2000, when 
you

[[Page 22473]]

were chairman, on three occasions, Transportation, Labor-H and 
Agriculture, you reported self-executing rules.
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I would just say, 
were there six amendments that were self-executing in the passage of 
any of those rules?
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield back to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. No. They were always Republican amendments, in contrast to 
this, which are both Republican and Democrat.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, never before have we had 
an action such as this, self-executing six amendments in passage of the 
rule and completely shutting down the process. Mr. Speaker, never 
before has this been done. I have a litany of colleagues who share my 
outrage. They want to be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, facts are a stubborn thing. At this point, 
I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we have proceeded for 10 appropriation bills with an 
open rule with an agreement we would reach a unanimous consent 
agreement on those rules within the framework of the time that we spent 
last year.
  I said on the floor that we spent approximately 52 hours longer on 
the first 10 bills than we had last year under unanimous consents that 
Mr. Obey agreed to. I am informed by Mr. Obey that our staff has 
recomputed the time, and when one includes the Agriculture bill, it is 
closer to 80-plus hours longer under open rules. That was certainly not 
shutting anybody down or out. That was not our intent. In fact, it was 
not our practice. As I pointed out then, we complied, we think, with 
the letter of that to which we agreed.
  We now find ourselves in the context of trying to move forward on 
very important legislation. This bill was open, of course, for debate 
and amendment for an extended period of time. The debate was not used 
for amendments or debate about the substance of the bill before us.
  In fact, it is my understanding the Rules Committee talked to those 
who wanted to offer amendments in this rule. It is not shutting out all 
amendments. In fact, what it is doing is including a number of 
amendments on both sides of the aisle. It includes in the self-
executing, to which the gentleman refers, a balanced group of 
amendments, all of which, we think, will be agreed to.
  Mr. Flake is going to offer some amendments, one I have a particular 
interest in. He was given the choice of what amendments that he wanted 
to offer. Yes, we have limited amendments, because we have limited time 
and we want to complete this bill.
  When we complete the debate on this bill, it will be just a little 
shorter than the bill that was considered last year. Just a little. We 
think it is fair. But we are here because we did not pursue the 
agreement that we thought we had with the open-rule process.
  Now, we still have one additional bill to go, the Defense bill. We 
are discussing that. We are hopeful that perhaps we can proceed as we 
have proceeded in the past, with an open rule on that bill.
  But we are trying to facilitate the doing of the people's business. 
We said we would do that. That is what we are doing. We believe that 
Members have been treated fairly.
  Yesterday, on SCHIP, there was a request of me to include an 
additional hour of debate. That was agreed to. I think that was a good 
and full debate. We had very significant differences on that bill. The 
bill was approved by the House. I think this bill will be approved by 
the House and moved. That will leave us just one appropriation bill. I 
think by the end of this week, we will have passed all of our 
appropriation bills.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know that my very good friend, the 
distinguished majority leader, as am I, is an institutionalist. He is 
just a little junior to me in this House. I came here just a few months 
before he did in his special election in 1981.
  Mr. HOYER. I will try to show the gentleman the appropriate respect, 
given that seniority.
  Mr. DREIER. That is the reason I reminded my friend of that, of 
course, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me just say that getting the people's business done is a priority 
for every Member of this House. I recognize the responsibility of 
ensuring that we move through with our appropriations work. As the 
gentleman knows very well, we were able to complete the House's work on 
appropriations bills in the past. The distinguished majority leader 
wants to do that as well.
  I do believe that if we look at the, you can call it a bump in the 
road, we have had very, very strong disagreement, as I said earlier, 
over the SCHIP bill. There was a lot of consternation about this. But 
the fact of the matter is, the additional hour was granted. We have now 
moved beyond that bill. We are now at nearly 2:30 in the afternoon, and 
things have moved certainly relatively smoothly today on the floor. I 
am just saying that I am very, very concerned about setting this kind 
of precedent to the appropriations process itself.
  I recognize we came forward with closed rules in the past. You all, 
unfortunately, have had twice as many closed rules at this point from 
the beginning of the last Congress. But on the appropriations process, 
I just hope, for the good of the institution, that being the half of 
the American people who won't be able to be heard, there were more than 
60 amendments that were in the queue to be considered for this measure, 
that we don't go down to only 12 amendments. I just find that very 
troubling.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his observations, and I 
reclaim my time.
  Mr. Speaker, very frankly, as I have said, we have spent almost 80 
hours more on the first 10 bills than we spent last year under the 
unanimous consents we granted to you under Mr. Obey's leadership. Given 
that fact, we considered a lot of amendments.
  From my perspective, frankly, in a group of 435, the reason you have 
a Rules Committee is because you can't possibly accommodate all 435 
Members if they want to offer one.
  Mr. DREIER. Thanks for telling me that. I was wondering.
  Mr. HOYER. As the former chairman of the Rules Committee, you know 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, in fact, in my opinion, although we allowed it, there 
were an extraordinary number of redundant amendments, 1.25 percent, 1 
percent, .75 percent. I understand that. They were message amendments. 
I understand making messages. That is part of what we are about.
  This rule that the gentleman is very concerned about is a precedent. 
Frankly, we argued for following the precedent of last year. That was 
not done.
  We are now trying to get the business of the people done, while at 
the same time giving a fair number of amendments, as we do on almost 
every other bill, but not every amendment. We think that we have done 
that. We think that we are fair in terms of the amendments that are 
included in the self-execution, because they are not just Democratic 
amendments. There are a balanced, equal number of amendments, and one 
other significant amendment I think will be unanimously supported, I 
hope and believe, and will facilitate the consideration of this bill 
and substantively move ahead the work of our country and our people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
mentioned the fact that this is the 27th year for the two of us to be 
serving in this great institution. If one goes back and looks beyond 
last year but instead at the appropriations process which during our 
27-year period has been considered under an open process, there are 
times

[[Page 22474]]

when we would be here late at night voting on appropriations bills in 
the past. It has allowed Members to work their will as they have gone 
through this.
  So while you have looked at the precedent of last year as part of 
this agreement that you and Mr. Boehner had, the concern that I have is 
that this is setting a precedent for the future, which is a very, very 
troubling one.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat: We are hopeful that we will be 
able to move forward in the future, next year, as we do the 
appropriation process, consistent with what we did on the first 10 
bills and what we may do on the twelfth bill, in a manner that honors 
and respects one another's ability to make their point but also to do 
the business of the people. That is what they expect us to do. That is 
what we are going to do.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), a hard-working member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this highly 
unorthodox rule and the unnecessary limiting process that is being 
proposed and that was even talked about here on the House floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, today, for the first time since my service in Congress, 
the House is considering a rule for the Agriculture appropriations bill 
that is something other than an open rule. It is also the first time 
since I began my service that the Rules Committee reported out a 
limited rule for an appropriations bill that self-executes amendments 
and revisions to the base text of the bill that may not have withstood 
the scrutiny of this Congress.
  One of the self-executing amendments of particular concern that was 
inserted late last night in the Rules Committee is included in part A 
of this rule. It is described as adding a limitation, and I quote, to 
effectively eliminate three West Virginia earmarks from the committee 
report accompanying the bill.
  Upon further review, it turns out that these three earmarks total 
more than $1.5 million and were requested by Congressman Alan Mollohan 
and would benefit the Canaan Valley Institute, a nonprofit established 
by Congressman Mollohan.
  This highly irregular inclusion of this self-executing provision of 
the rule is particularly troubling, because the Canaan Valley Institute 
is currently under investigation by the FBI. In March, when he 
requested this funding, Congressman Mollohan certified that he had no 
financial interest in any of the earmarks and affirmed the worthiness 
of each project.
  I strongly believe that this late-night maneuver was not properly 
vetted through the regular order processes. As a result of that, 
several serious questions have arisen.
  I would like to engage the Democrat Member of the Rules Committee, my 
friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), on a few questions about this 
process.
  The first question that I would yield to the gentleman on is, who 
asked the Rules Committee to take this highly unusual action and what 
explanation did they provide to justify the removal of Representative 
Mollohan's earmarks?
  Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman will yield, the distinguished chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, who is on the floor here today, Mr. 
Obey, did. If you would like to ask him questions, you may.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am going to continue asking you questions, and I will 
continue yielding to you. I appreciate the gentleman.
  Did anyone on the Rules Committee inquire as to whether Mr. 
Mollohan's certification of no financial interest had been proven in 
any way deficient or inaccurate?

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say the reason these amendments are in the 
self-executing rule is that we agree with you that under the 
circumstances they should not be in the bill.
  As I warned the House when we first started bringing appropriation 
bills to the floor, our committee did not have enough time to 
adequately get all of these amendments that were coming at us, and so 
we asked for a process which would allow us during the month of August 
to review all of them.
  In the end the House decided they did not want to do that. One of the 
major reasons is because Members of your party wanted to make certain 
that we had an opportunity to deal with them on the floor now. I warned 
at the time that meant that mistakes would be made. They were. When we 
caught the mistake, I went to the Rules Committee and Mr. Mollohan 
agreed that under the circumstances they ought to come out.
  We ought to be congratulated for it, rather than being questioned 
about it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time and continuing my dialogue with the 
gentleman, in other words, you had figured out that they were 
inappropriately inserted?
  Mr. OBEY. No, we had determined that because they were in 
controversy, for the good of the House they should not be considered at 
this time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Continuing my dialogue with either gentleman, in as 
much as the Mollohan earmarks were approved by the entire 
Appropriations Committee, does the gentleman know whether the 
appropriation Members on both sides of the aisle have been advised 
about the reasons for canceling funding for the projects which they 
have overwhelmingly approved with the knowledge that it was appropriate 
at the time?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Let me simply say to the gentleman that I very much 
regret the tone that the gentleman is taking here today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to yield the gentleman from Dallas an 
additional minute.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, another question which I wish to ask is 
whether the Rules Committee could advise Members seeking to remove 
Member-supported earmarks from other pieces of legislation, whether 
they might take advantage of the precedent we are setting here today 
and whether they might expect the Rules Committee to look favorably on 
similar requests for self-executing provisions in the future?
  Mr. Speaker, the reason why we ask these questions is because the 
self-executing provisions of this rule are highly unusual and I believe 
raise lots of questions. We look forward to asking these questions and 
hope we get forthright answers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me finish what I was about to say to 
the gentleman from Texas.
  I very much regret the tone of his remarks here on the floor today. 
Last night the gentleman talked about the need for civility and the 
need for us to have more comity in this Chamber. It is clear today that 
he obviously lost sight of at least the spirit of his remarks last 
night. I regret that very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think we again need to remind ourselves why 
we are here in this situation. And I don't like it, but we are here 
because people need to experience the consequences of their own 
actions, at least adults do.
  Why are we here? We are here because as the distinguished majority 
leader pointed out, despite the agreement that we felt we had reached 
for consideration of the appropriation bills, we had seen more than 4 
hours of dilatory action the last time this bill was on the floor. As a 
result, this House was not able to complete action on a single 
provision in the agriculture appropriation bill even though we were 
told that the minority was really unhappy about something else totally 
unrelated to that bill.
  So they dragged this out for 4 hours during which we were able to 
accomplish nothing. At the same time, the

[[Page 22475]]

President is on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. At the same time 
we have had foot-dragging on the part of the minority on this bill, the 
President held a press conference this morning in which he is attacking 
the Congress for not moving these bills at a sufficiently rapid speed.
  Secondly, I would point out that, as the distinguished majority 
leader indicated, we have spent some 86 hours more debating 
appropriation bills this session than we spent debating appropriation 
bills the previous session when the now-minority party was then in 
control. Why was that the case? Because last year we considered 144 
amendments to those appropriation bills, whereas this year we have 
considered 339 amendments. That is a 77 percent increase. It 
illustrates why I keep referring to filibuster by way of amendment.
  There comes a time when we have to face the fact that if the public's 
work is to be done, we need to move these bills forward. It was very 
clear that this bill was going nowhere the last time it was on the 
floor. The distinguished majority leader informed the minority if that 
was the case, we would have to go to the Rules Committee in order to 
move the people's business forward. That is exactly what we have done.
  With respect to his criticism about this rule containing self-
executing provisions, I would simply point out that on eight occasions 
when the gentleman from California was chairman, his committee reported 
out, and this House passed, self-executing rules.
  In 2000, it occurred on the Transportation, Labor-HHS and Agriculture 
bills.
  In 2001, it occurred on Agriculture, Treasury-Postal, Foreign Ops and 
Energy and Water.
  In 2002, it occurred on the Interior bill. And I have them before me.
  In each case, they contain the magic words ``provides that the 
amendment or amendments printed in the Rules Committee report 
accompanying the rule shall be considered as adopted.''
  Let me simply point out that I think it is indeed regrettable that we 
have had to adopt this approach in order to finish the public's 
business on time. But in fact, if Members of the minority want to know 
why it was required, all they have to do is look in the mirror.
  Now I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I will say in response to the assessment that the 
gentleman provided of my service as chairman of the Rules Committee, I 
never reported out a rule that shut down the entire process, which is 
exactly what this rule is doing. With regard to self-executing items--
--
  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, with all due respect, this amendment 
makes in order 14 amendments. The majority of those amendments are 
Republican amendments. One of them is an amendment by the gentleman 
from Arizona that in fact goes after a project in the district of the 
majority leader. That is hardly shutting down the process.
  Mr. Speaker, they were the ones who shut down the process 2 days ago 
when they refused to allow us to consider a single new amendment during 
a 4-hour period.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from 
California for yielding.
  I come to the floor today to express my disappointment over where 
this process has led us and the fact that we are going to shut down the 
appropriations process and go to what we would refer to as martial law.
  Now over the last several days it has become clear that our Members 
are concerned about what has happened to the process of due 
deliberation in the House. Over the last several days my name has been 
taken in vain over the fact that there was an agreement reached earlier 
this year between Mr. Hoyer and myself and Mr. Obey. And there was an 
agreement we would bring earmark reform to the appropriation process, 
and as part of that agreement that we would work towards a unanimous 
consent request on each of the appropriation bills.
  I want to tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, tell my friend from Wisconsin 
that I feel as though I have kept my part of the deal. I have worked 
diligently with our Members to try to come to an agreement that our 
Members felt was fair. The gentleman outlined the number of hours that 
we have taken on the appropriations bills this year. There is no 
question that more time has been taken. And that is because we have had 
a change in the majority here in Congress. We have had a serious change 
in each of the appropriation bills in terms of the priorities of the 
new majority versus the priorities of the former majority. So one would 
expect that more time was going to be taken on these appropriations 
bills this year.
  But what brought all of this to an end was the process by which the 
State Children's Health Insurance reauthorization was coming to the 
floor where our Members were shut out of debate, where we were 
presented with a 488-page bill at 11:30 one night and expected to be in 
committee the next day ready to have committee action on a bill that 
had never ever had a hearing.
  Now as I mentioned to the gentleman the other night, all we seek on 
this side is fairness. And so the tactics employed on the Ag 
appropriations bill the other night was an opportunity for our Members 
to try to come down and talk about their concerns with the process and 
their concerns with that work product.
  But the actions taken here today to shut the whole appropriations 
process down, lock it under a rule, self-execute six amendments into 
this process is unprecedented. I heard the gentleman over the last 
several years talk about process and how the minority ought to be 
treated. I heard it day after day.
  And I might add to my friend that I had some sympathy for the 
concerns that he raised. But as I mentioned the other night, all we 
seek is to be treated the way you asked to be treated. That's all we 
ask. We could have had a discussion about trying to come to a unanimous 
consent request on the balance of this bill. We could have sat down and 
tried to work through the process on the Defense appropriation bill so 
we wouldn't have to go through this; but that opportunity wasn't 
presented. So I stand here today with regret that we have had to come 
to this point.
  I am one who believes that there is a way we can disagree on our 
policy differences here without being disagreeable; that there is a way 
that the two sides can make their points without cutting the legs off 
the other side.
  But the actions here that are being taken will do nothing more than 
stifle the ability of the minority to make its case, the minority who 
represent nearly half of American people, to effectively make our case 
on this bill, and I think it is regrettable.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Let me simply say the gentleman says we have ``shut down the 
appropriations process.'' That is absolute nonsense. We are making in 
order 12 amendments, all of them Republican amendments. Three of the 
six self-executing amendments are amendments that are sponsored in all 
or in part by Republicans.
  If anyone shut down the process, it was the minority party which 
filibustered for 4 hours the last time this bill was on the floor and 
didn't allow us to complete consideration of a single item in the bill. 
Not one. In addition to which when we tried to pursue a unanimous 
consent agreement before that bill hit the floor, we were denied that 
opportunity by the minority party.
  We had an understanding with the minority party that these bills 
would be finished in roughly equivalent time to that which was taken 
last year. The minority party was so angry about a bill that was going 
to extend health care to 5 million additional kids they walked away 
from that agreement, and that's why we are here today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 8 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

[[Page 22476]]


  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I might just add to 
the count of amendments, lest it be forgotten on Tuesday night, that I 
accepted both the Gingrey and the McHenry amendments.

                              {time}  1445

  So that is 14 Republican amendments that have been allowed for debate 
and discussion.
  I'm saddened by the path that we've taken to find our way here today, 
but I must also say that, yes, I'm glad. I'm glad that we've arrived 
here today because this Agriculture appropriations bill is a good bill, 
it's a fair bill, and it has the potential to do so much for people and 
for our communities who are in such need. And, yes, in fact, over the 
last several months it has been a product of hard work, of honest 
partnership, of an ongoing collaboration over a number of weeks from my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  I'm sorry that I don't see the ranking member of this subcommittee, 
Mr. Kingston, on the floor. Mr. Kingston can attest to the kind of work 
we have done together to produce and to craft a very solid piece of 
legislation that, in fact, will make a difference in people's lives.
  And we should not forget how much that we have put into this bill and 
why. At the subcommittee level, the full committee level, even, as I 
said, this past Tuesday, this bill has been a bipartisan process, 
giving every single member of the subcommittee and of the full 
committee the opportunity to engage, to propose amendments, to ask for 
a vote if they wanted to. It has been a totally open process.
  As a matter of fact, in the full committee there was not even one 
vote called because there was such a sense of agreement on every single 
amendment and the process that we went through in that committee. For 
that, I stand here very proud as the Chair of this subcommittee, and 
the first time that I have served as the Chair of this committee, we 
produced a bill that has such support. I defy any of the other 11 
subcommittees to have that same kind of bipartisanship that we had.
  This bill is too important. There's critical responsibilities. And 
maybe people don't view this bill as that important, but speak to rural 
America, speak to people who care about what's happening in nutrition, 
speak to people who care about conservation in this country. That is 
what is in this bill, renewable sources of energy. To let it be 
filibustered, to play political games, to let that take precedent over 
this bill is what's happened.
  The minority shut down this process. The minority's tactics, 4 hours, 
4 hours, and I appreciate the minority leader's disappointment with 
SCHIP, but on Tuesday night SCHIP was not the legislation that we were 
discussing. Four hours. Those tactics, tied to other legislation, have 
stood in the way of this process, even as the American people, in fact, 
do insist that we get to work fulfilling our obligations to consumers 
who want safe drugs and food.
  It's good to see the gentleman from Georgia on the floor because Jack 
Kingston and I have worked very well together, as I said, to produce a 
good bill, one of which I stand here proudly to support and to carry on 
with today.
  Our priorities have been to have safe drugs and food, farmers who 
rely on fair and functioning markets, children who need healthy food to 
meet their potential, and rural communities who need opportunities to 
thrive. And our priority has been to move with swift purpose, clear 
direction on several key goals: strengthening rural America, protecting 
the public health, improving nutrition for more Americans, transforming 
our energy future, supporting conservation, investing in research and 
enhancing oversight.
  The bill provides discretionary resources of $18.8 billion. It is $1 
billion above 2007, $987.4 million above the budget request, and to be 
sure and to make it very clear, 95 percent of the increase over the 
budget request, $940 million, is used to restore funding that was 
eliminated or cut in the President's budget, to acknowledge that we 
have, in fact, the obligation to meet the needs of hundreds of our 
communities and millions of Americans.
  It is about strengthening rural America. And what we do in terms of 
facilitating growth, softening the impact of population loss, this bill 
includes $728.8 million to support community facilities, water and 
waste disposal systems, and business grants to protect our public 
health. We provide $1.7 billion for the FDA, $62 million over the 
budget request, the first step in a fundamental food safety 
transformation at FDA.
  We include $39.8 billion for food stamps, a program to meet increased 
participation and to ensure rising food prices. We fund the Women, 
Infants and Children program above the President's request. We step up 
to priorities like investing in research, which many of you have 
requested in earmarks in this bill, and conservation; and when it comes 
to transforming energy, this budget includes bioenergy, renewable 
energy research, $1.2 billion, including loans and grants in rural 
areas of this country.
  I'm proud of the bill. I'm proud of its priorities and the goals that 
we set out to accomplish. We have obligations here, and that is to 
discuss and to recognize what our roles are and what we do here in 
order to meet the needs of the American public, not to interrupt for 4 
hours for political gain or for whatever is annoying you that day, to 
disrupt the process, shut it down. And we're going to move forward, 
we're going to discuss this bill, we're going to pass the bill and 
achieve the goals. You choose delay. We choose to proceed to go forward 
in a responsible way.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with the utmost respect for my good friend 
from New Haven, the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, I will say 
that we could at this moment be debating this bill if we continued with 
this open amendment process.
  The SCHIP measure is over and done. My friends on the other side of 
the aisle have won this debate. We are prepared to move ahead with an 
open amendment process that will allow for a free-flowing debate.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. We have no guarantees with regard to the process.
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, let me just tell you the 
guarantee of the process. I was very happy to yield to my friend, and I 
will be happy to yield to her again, but I will say, Mr. Speaker, the 
fact of the matter is we have not had any dilatory tactics put into 
place since passage of the SCHIP bill. All the time we spend on this 
rule could have been spent discussing exactly what the gentlewoman has 
been speaking about.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from 
Morristown, New Jersey, a hardworking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully change the subject.
  Mr. Speaker, all Members should be aware that there's language in 
this bill that greatly expands existing U.S. policy on importing drugs 
from other countries by allowing the wholesale importation of medicines 
not just for personal use but now for commercial use. Implementation of 
this new language would legalize the practice of reimportation of even 
more undocumented prescription drugs of unknown origin into the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, existing Federal policies allow for importation of 
prescription drugs for personal use, but this new provision opens the 
floodgates to the unknown. This is a risk we should not take, not for 
prescription drugs nor for any products that might do harm to our loved 
ones.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California, 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. We will reserve our time at this point.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to our 
colleague from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

[[Page 22477]]


  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule as well. I don't think it's a good 
precedent to set to move away from open rules on appropriations. I'm 
one that's often accused of dilatory tactics on these bills, having so 
many amendments on earmarks. These aren't dilatory at all.
  I should note that on the bill that we had a couple of weeks ago, the 
Energy and Water bill, I believe I offered seven or eight. With that, 
one Member came to the floor before I offered and withdrew or asked for 
an amendment which he received to strike his own earmark.
  We're seeing the same here, three earmarks stricken from the bill in 
the Rules Committee because an amendment was going to be offered to 
strike them on the floor.
  My understanding is with the Defense bill tomorrow that there will be 
another amendment, self-executing rule to strike another earmark that 
was going to be challenged on the floor.
  So this is not dilatory at all to come to the floor and say, hey, 
there are earmarks here that might be questionable. There are a lot of 
earmarks that would go to private companies. These are, in essence, 
sole source contracts.
  I sympathize with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. 
Obey, who said many times that we simply don't have the staff to police 
this many earmarks. I don't think you could have policed the 15,000 we 
had a couple of years ago. If this Congress is successful in cutting 
that down by half, we can't come close to policing that number either.
  We have former Members in jail because of earmarks that we approved 
in this body. We simply can't go on like this, and if we shut down this 
process in a manner where we're only allowed to question a certain 
number of earmarks, I wanted to question 10 on this bill. There are 410 
in the bill. Ten is not an unreasonable number. I was only allowed 
five.
  Who knows on the bill that we do tomorrow if we have a closed rule. 
If we aren't able to question these, where are we able to do it?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend 
from Mariposa, California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
  I rise in opposition to this new structured rule for the Ag 
appropriations bill. I'm very disappointed that the Rules Committee 
decided to shut down a free and open amendment process on this bill. My 
constituents at home deserve the right to have their opinions for or 
against any provision of this bill heard.
  One of those provisions would be an amendment that was offered to 
strike section 738 in H.R. 3161. This amendment was found out of order 
by the Rules Committee. Section 738's intent is to stop horse 
slaughter. However, the unintended consequences of this section will 
have a detrimental effect on the entire equine industry.
  Should this amendment become law, the breeding industry will be 
negatively affected when foreign buyers are not able to transport their 
American horses to another country. International and domestic racing 
events will also be adversely impacted by this provision when racing 
horses are not able to move across borders.
  The economic detriment that would occur if this bill passes without 
our amendment is almost as expansive as the actual language of section 
738. Every industry, from television revenues gained from major horse 
races to the small, family equine breeder, would feel the impact. In 
fact, the U.S. horse industry supports 1.4 million jobs and has an 
annual economic impact of $102 billion.
  In addition, restricting USDA funding to inspect horses will spread 
animal disease.
  How the Rules Committee determined this amendment was out of order, 
when it is clearly an important and germane amendment to the Ag 
appropriations bill, is beyond my comprehension. In deeming this 
amendment out of order, they have closed out an entire industry from 
being able to have their views expressed through their representatives 
on legislation that would have huge economic impacts.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the rule to the Ag 
appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I support one of the self-executing 
amendments in this rule, and it's my understanding that in the original 
Ag appropriations bill, there was very broad language relating to horse 
slaughter intending to stop horse slaughter in the U.S. that has passed 
this House overwhelmingly on six different occasions.
  And the gentlelady from Connecticut in responding to the concerns 
that that amendment was overbroad has asked that a self-executing 
amendment be included in this rule that is sponsored by three Democrats 
and myself. I would say that she addressed our concerns, and I would 
commend her for that.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  Mr. BOSWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding his time on this 
issue we have just mentioned here.
  I would first like to thank the Agriculture appropriations committee 
for their hard work on this legislation. It's a thoughtful piece of 
legislation, and I do plan to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I do need to express my concern and disappointment on an 
amendment I was planning to offer along with Representatives Costa, 
King, Salazar, and Radanovich that was not made in order.
  Even though Representative Spratt's amendment, which replaced section 
738 dealing with horse slaughter, was accepted by the Ag appropriations 
committee and addresses some of the large issues, including 
transportation and animal health inspection, it fails to address one 
major issue. With 100,000 horses abandoned each year in the United 
States, and animal adoption facilities overflowing, how, how are we 
supposed to deal with these animals?
  Having spent most of my life involved in animal agriculture, I 
understand many of the issues firsthand. I have worked with a variety 
of animals, dairy cows, feeder pigs, to my current cow-calf operation, 
and we have always had horses on the farm, even today. In fact, I can 
share with you that on the 4th of July, this past 4th in my hometown of 
Lamoni, Iowa, I was awarded first place in the horse hitch category, a 
beautiful horse and buggy.
  Mr. Spratt's amendment that was accepted by the committee does not 
address this issue of what to do with the additional 100,000 unwanted 
horses with nowhere to go and no one to take care of them. The burden 
will fall to the American taxpayer. Just housing and fitting one horse 
costs around $1,900 per year. Mr. Spratt's amendment will cost $127 
million in just the first year alone for these animals.
  I want to be very clear: I love horses. I have owned horses my entire 
life, and they have been some of the most loyal companions over the 
years.
  But I do have major concerns to the fact that we are making it 
illegal for horses to be slaughtered for human consumption, but not 
addressing what we are going to do with these horses and how we are 
going to care for them. We all should have a major concern and do 
something about it. This problem is not simply going to go away. I 
thank the gentleman for the time.
  I would again like to reiterate my disappointment over not being 
allowed to offer my amendment, but I do support the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from 
Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this modified closed rule 
on an appropriations bill.
  I had two very substantial amendments. The gentlelady from 
Connecticut, the distinguished chairman, said that she was going to 
accept my message amendment, my 1 percent cut,

[[Page 22478]]

the $50,000 amendment that I brought on Tuesday. Of course, it was a 
dilatory amendment to try to get an opportunity to speak about the CHIP 
legislation that we knew was coming under a closed rule.
  But now I have 2 good amendments that were not made in order. One 
amendment would say no money in this bill would be allowed to grant 
food stamps or WIC money to anybody but United States citizens, not to 
immigrants, not to illegal immigrants. In some cases, the current law 
is very vague on that issue, a very substantive amendment that was not 
made in order.
  Finally, one other amendment, the Farm Service Agency in my district, 
in Gordon County, Calhoun, Georgia. In fact, that Farm Service Agency 
serves several counties and is doing a great job.
  I am denied the opportunity to argue on behalf of the citizens of 
Gordon County to keep that Farm Service Agency open. I am denied that 
by this modified closed rule.
  Regretfully, I have to stand and say that I am going to vote ``no'' 
on this rule, urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that of all people, the 
gentleman who just spoke is way off base when he cries about being 
denied an opportunity to deal with an amendment.
  It was his amendment for $50,000 that this House debated for 4 hours 
without coming to a resolution thereon because of the filibuster that 
was being conducted on that side of the aisle. To suggest that somehow 
that Member, who single-handedly held us up for 4 hours, to suggest 
that he was denied, is a joke.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of 
the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alexander, Iowa 
(Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman from California in recognizing the 
huge town of 160 people of Alexander, Iowa.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because it does cut off 
and stifle debate on an appropriations bill. This really violates the 
open rule tradition on appropriation bill debate in the House and runs 
counter to the way we ought to be deciding to spend the taxpayers' 
resources.
  Having said that, I want to commend the gentlelady from Connecticut 
for her great work, and the ranking member from Georgia really did an 
outstanding job.
  There is one particular component of the new rule I would like to 
make a comment on. The reported bill contains a provision, section 746, 
stating that ``no funds in this act may be used to authorize qualified 
health claims for conventional foods.''
  This provision means that none of the funds in the bill can be used 
to give permission to display important health information, 
irrespective of whether or not the information is scientifically valid.
  The provision, as reported, would clearly stifle the FDA's ability to 
put forth information on health benefits in foods.
  This new rule self-executes a provision which narrows a reported 
version of section 746 to stipulate that the funding prohibition 
applies only to the FDA. The problem is that the change doesn't really 
address the problem.
  If this provision is intended to help FDA avoid wasted time and 
resources on frivolous petitions, it misses the mark. Nothing in this 
revised language removes or alters FDA's responsibility to review these 
petitions as required by law. The provision only denies final approval 
or authorization of the use of valid claims as to the risks and 
benefits of foods sold in the U.S.
  This means that FDA still must carry out its mission of reviewing 
petitions on claims, but just cannot issue approvals, even if they are 
warranted. The problem is that if FDA does not do it, nobody will.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairwoman of 
this subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we have waited long enough for energy 
reform and for nutrition reform, which is what this bill tackles. I 
rise today to support working for American farmers, but also working 
for those who get up every day without a meal.
  To recognize that it is important to have food safety, it's important 
to have an improved food and lunch program and food stamps, it's 
important to focus on nutrition, and that is what we have done here.
  I am glad to see that there is an aspect that deals with alternative 
fuels; and having written a bill dealing with cellulosic ethanol, I 
know that we have to move in a more effective direction. But I am also 
glad that we recognize a particular viable aspect of the importance of 
dealing with hunger in America.
  I am concerned and hope that as we move forward, one of our vital 
assets, the Hunger Center, will move toward authorization, as I 
understand, and then increase funding so that it can be a tool to the 
Department of Agriculture in dealing with the question of hunger in 
America and around the world. This particular bill also provides more 
help for USAID, and I believe that it is an important asset.
  In the short time that I have I would like to yield to the gentlelady 
from Connecticut to ask a question, and that is to comment on a point I 
made about the Hunger Center, and the fact that it is moving towards 
authorization that we will see in the years to come, an opportunity for 
more work on its part and more resources.
  Ms. DeLAURO. First of all, I want to thank the gentlelady for her 
comments. I think we have worked very hard in this bill, in fact, to 
increase the opportunity for nutrition. I would be happy to work with 
the gentlelady from Texas. We have $2 million in the bill for the 
Hunger Center and will look forward to working with you as we move 
forward to try to increase those funds.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I ask my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3161, which strengthens 
our rural communities, while making sure that the American people have 
adequate, safe and nutritious food to eat. Let me commend the 
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, Ms. DeLauro, for her exceptional 
leadership in crafting such extraordinary legislation to combat hunger, 
obesity and malnutrition in our nation and around the world. That is 
why I strongly support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 allows us to reinvest in the often forgotten 
but most vitally important rural areas of America. H.R. 3161 is 
designed to sustain the vitality of rural America, as well as 
protecting public health and food safety, improving nutrition and 
healthy eating, and promoting renewable energy and conservation in 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 3 million households in the rural America 
continue to have inadequate or no water or sewer service at all. H.R. 
3161 is the solution to this disparity in that it provides $500 million 
for rural water and waste disposal grants, a 14 percent increase over 
2007, and $1 billion for water and waste direct loans for the fiscal 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, energy independence and protecting our environment are 
universal concerns to us all. The Energy Information Administration 
estimates that the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil 
it consumes. A bill that I have proposed, the 21st Century Energy 
Independence Act acknowledges this issue and aims to replace oil 
imports with domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic 
ethanol that can help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes to 
our annual trade deficit, and end our addiction to foreign oil.
  My bill alleviates our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels by 
utilizing loan guarantees to promote the development of traditional and 
cellulosic ethanol technology. In addition to ensuring access to more 
abundant sources of energy, replacing petroleum use with ethanol will 
help reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which

[[Page 22479]]

are otherwise expected to increase by 80 percent by 2025. Cellulosic 
ethanol can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 87 percent. Thus, 
transitioning from foreign oil to ethanol will protect our environment 
from dangerous carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 supports an innovative solution to our 
national energy crisis as well. H.R. 3161 ensures that America achieves 
energy independence and improves our environment by establishing a loan 
guarantee program which supports projects for the harvesting, storing, 
and delivery of agriculture residues for use in cellulosic or 
traditional ethanol production plants. H.R. 3161 supports energy and 
conservation, nearly doubles funding for renewable energy loans and 
grants to businesses to grow our economy, create new jobs, lower energy 
prices, and reduce global warming. The bill provides resources for 
research, aid to farmers and ranchers, and loans to businesses, 
restores many vital programs such as the Grazing Lands Conservation 
Initiative, Resource Conservation and Development, and the watershed 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, recent food scares--about peanut butter and lettuce--
have made Americans nervous about where their food originates. H.R. 
3161 tackles these concerns and addresses the importance of food 
safety. This bill fully funds the Food Safety and Inspection Service at 
USDA, shifts funds to fill vacancies in federal meat inspector 
positions, invests in research, and funds a transformation of FDA food 
safety regulations. It also prohibits imported poultry products from 
China, and sets a timeline for USDA to implement critical country of 
origin labeling for our meat supply after six years of Republican 
delays.
  In addition, H.R. 3161 provides a special supplemental nutritional 
program for women, infants, and children other known as (WIC). This 
provision is so essential because it affords many women, especially 
women of color in lower income brackets, the opportunity to care for 
themselves and their newborns after birth. Without programs such as 
WIC, many mothers would not be able to maintain a healthy lifestyle 
during pregnancies and after childbirth. Because of WIC, mothers can 
afford their nutritional foods they need to sustain their pregnancies 
and avoid miscarriages, stillbirths and defects caused by 
malnourishment during pregnancy. H.R. 3161 invests $233.4 million (4 
percent) more than the President to feed more than 8 million pregnant 
women, mothers and children next year.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe in the importance of multilateral engagement, 
and in the immense value of working with other concerned parties. 
Hunger and malnutrition are truly global problems, and, while I 
strongly urge the United States to be a leader in combating both, it is 
not the only world actor. International organizations, like the United 
Nations, are actively combating global hunger through a number of 
different organs including the World Food Programme, the Food and 
Agriculture Organization, and the World Health Organization. 
Additionally, regional organizations, such as the African Union (AU) 
and the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), play a 
crucial role in efforts to eradicate hunger.
  I have an amendment that requires coordination and integration 
between different foreign assistance programs, and it states that 
assistance shall also be coordinated and integrated in the recipient 
country with other donors, including international and regional 
organizations and other donor countries.
  Nonetheless, hunger is not a problem facing not only the 
international community faces, but it is also a problem in our own 
country. Many women, children, and the elderly should not wake and go 
to bed hungry in our great nation, but tragically this happens all too 
often in the cities and villages and small towns of our great country. 
Too many Americans continue to suffer from food shortages, hunger, and 
insecurity. According to 2005 figures, 35.1 million people live in 
households that are ``food insecure,'' or they do not know where their 
next meal will come from.
  The commodity supplemental food program incorporated into H.R. 3161 
provides $500,000 monthly in the year 2007 to combat hunger and 
increases funding in this area to allow people in five additional 
states to participate in the program and expand those getting food in 
states already in the program. In addition, under the Food Stamp 
Benefit provision, H.R. 3161 protects the most vulnerable and helpless; 
families of soldiers in combat. Like the recently passed Farm bill, the 
measure ensures that the families of soldiers in combat are not 
penalized under the Food Stamp program. It also rejects the 
Administration's proposal to restrict eligibility for food stamps by 
excluding needy families who are receiving certain other services.
  Mr. Speaker, let us remember that 1 in 3 American adults is 
overweight or obese and more than 9 million children are struggling 
with obesity. H.R. 3161 aims to improve the eating habits of Americans, 
particularly our children, through programs that teach children about 
healthy eating. H.R. 3161 increases funding for nutrition programs, 
including the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, which 
broadens Fresh Fruit and Vegetable and Simplified Summer Food programs 
to all states to provide nutritious foods to children in low-income 
families, and specialty crop grants to encourage more fruit and 
vegetable consumption.
  Obesity is associated with 35 major diseases including chronic and 
life-threatening conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. 
It is important to keep our Nation healthy by providing access to high 
consumption of vegetables and fruits to the future of our great 
country, our children. By supporting H.R. 3161 we assure a healthy 
consumption of nutritional foods for children whose only crime is that 
their families are poor.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 is essential because it addresses one of the 
most staggering causes of death in children: malnutrition. Malnutrition 
remains a significant problem worldwide, particularly among children. 
According to the United Nations World Food Programme, severe acute 
malnutrition affects an estimated 20 million children under the age of 
five worldwide and is responsible in whole or in part for more than 
half of all deaths of children. Malnutrition kills approximately one 
million children each year, or an average of one every thirty seconds.
  These statistics are absolutely frightening and simply intolerable. 
They are also avoidable. The World Food Programme estimates that, when 
implemented on a large scale and combined with hospital treatment for 
children who suffer complications, a community-based approach to 
combating malnutrition could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of 
children each year.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 recognizes the importance of helping our 
neighbors in combating the hunger. H.R. 3161 provides funding for the 
Foreign Agricultural Service in the amount of $159,136,000 and 
transfers of $4,985,000, for a total salaries and expenses level of 
$164,121,000, an increase of $2,817,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $9,073,000 below the budget request.
  In addition, H.R. 3161 permits the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID) to use up to 25 percent of the funds 
appropriated for local or regional purchase of food to assist people 
threatened by a food security crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, if it were not for grants such as the McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, many 
foreigners would have no other choice than to leave their native 
country in pursuit of a better life. H.R. 3161 reminds us that it is 
important for the United States to foster a relationship with other 
parts of the world, so that citizens of developing countries can also 
have basic rights such as sufficient amount of food. The McGovern-Dole 
International Food program is funded in this bill in the amount of 
$100,000,000, an increase of $1,000,000 above the amount available for 
fiscal year 2007, and the same as the budget request.
  The George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Program fights child hunger and poverty by supporting 
school feeding operations, which provide nutritious meals to children 
in schools. This simple formula has been proven to be a success. 
Because of such programs, students are better able to concentrate and 
learn more quickly on a full stomach. Enrollment and attendance rates 
have skyrocketed as a result of school feeding programs, particularly 
among girls who are too often denied an education.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 110 million school-aged children suffering 
from hunger every day, and they are counting on America's leadership 
and generosity to provide them with an opportunity to break the cycle 
of poverty. This bill provides that leadership and generosity, and it 
is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for 
its passage by an overwhelming margin.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend 
from Kiron, Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the ranking member from California for 
yielding and for his leadership on the Rules Committee. That has been 
an important model leadership for our conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this modified closed rule for a 
number of things, but the issues that I may be able to raise in this 
amount of time is that as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
said, the amendments

[[Page 22480]]

that are approved under this rule are Republican amendments, but I 
would point out that those which are adopted under the rule, the self-
executing amendments, are not Republican amendments for the most part.
  I have in my hand an amendment that says ``offered by Mr. Mollohan of 
West Virginia,'' the one that was the subject of Mr. Sessions' remarks 
that strikes those three earmarks that were in there.
  Now, they were stricken because, according to the chairman, they were 
in controversy. Now, this controversy has not been something that has 
been a large area of discussion here on this floor. But the gentleman 
from West Virginia has said he is unaware of any investigations. He may 
be the only one in this Congress that's unaware.
  I would point out that the Speaker handed the gentleman from West 
Virginia the gavel to the appropriations subcommittee that he chairs. 
He held and still holds the purse strings of the agency that's been 
reported as looking into this that has brought out this controversy.

                              {time}  1515

  That is why we are here on this. These three earmarks that came from 
West Virginia from Mr. Mollohan stricken by a self-enacting rule, now 
is this also going to be the policy in the case on the Department of 
Defense appropriations bill that comes up? Because there are at least 
nine earmarks in that bill as well. So these are the consequences of a 
closed rule. There is friction, there is controversy, there is 4\1/2\ 
hours of debate, which is greatly to the resentment of the gentlelady 
from Connecticut.
  But I would say we got through Justice approps through an open rule, 
and we did so with legitimate debate, and we were here to perfect the 
legislation, and we did so to the extent and we executed the will of 
this body. This rule does not execute the will of this body. This rule 
self-enacts. Vote down the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that the gentleman feels 
he needs to personalize this debate; and I would only ask the 
gentleman, how many ranking Republicans are right now under 
investigation who continue to serve in their capacity?
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank Chairman Rosa DeLauro for an incredible bill that I would like to 
get to so we can vote on it.
  The debate on this rule I think just shows what is going on here, 
which is a reason to stall, a reason to just eat up the time so that we 
really don't get to the underlying issues. Because they know when we 
pass this bill it is going to pass with a bipartisan vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. No, I will not yield; and I want to say why.
  In law, you learn an old adage that says, in order to get equity, you 
have got to show equity.
  The other night we were on the floor with a bunch of amendments, and 
the amendment was debated, and it was accepted by the chairwoman. And 
then we went on and debated with motions to adjourn, motions to rise 
for a number of hours.
  The gentleman who offered the original amendment that was adopted 
also had 11 other amendments. This is a $100 billion operation, the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, $100 billion. His amendments were to 
cut $50,000, another amendment for $60,000, another amendment for 
$7,000, another amendment for $39,000. And it went on. The list went on 
and on. He could have put all of those into one amendment. It still 
wouldn't have even matched $1 million.
  So the point is that these were all dilatory amendments to just try 
to delay the time; and I think that equity was not shown, partnership 
was not shown, bipartisanship was not shown. And that is why we have a 
rule that is fair, allows these amendments, 12 more, to be debated, and 
the self-executing rule did self-execute some Republican amendments as 
well.
  I urge the adoption of this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to my friend from Hobbs, New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this unduly restrictive rule. I had two 
amendments that I was prepared to offer to this legislation, neither of 
which will be considered here today. They were pretty simple, really.
  My first amendment would have increased funding for the Wildlife 
Services by $500,000 to support the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program in 
New Mexico and Arizona. This program is teetering on the edge of 
failure. My attempt to add a modest amount of additional funding to 
manage dangerous problem wolves was rejected by the majority.
  My second amendment was an attempt to bring protections to the 
endangered wolves in the Northeast United States, where many in the 
conservation community believe they are being killed by Wildlife 
Services.
  My amendments were filed in a timely fashion. The committee was 
alerted to my intentions all along. Yet this is the result of the rule 
that we have before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the rule be amended to 
allow me to offer my two amendments which have been placed at the desk, 
which were also filed with the Rules Committee, were provided to the 
Appropriations Committee and are critically important to my 
constituents in New Mexico.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield 
for that purpose?
  Mr. McGOVERN. No, I do not, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not yielded for that 
purpose.
  The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am reserving at this time because I am 
the last speaker on my side.

                          ____________________