[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17104-17118]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 609 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. 2997.

                              {time}  1937


                     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. 2997) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Snyder 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 gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm delighted to present the 2010 Agriculture-FDA appropriations 
bill. I want to thank the ranking member, Congressman Kingston, for his 
collaboration and his input over the last few months. I thank both the 
minority and majority staff as well for their tireless work. Lastly, 
and especially not least, a special thank you to Chairman Obey for his 
counsel and for the resources he provided to make this bill possible 
and for his leadership and vision to ensure that we can continue to get 
things done and achieve our goals.
  We stand today at a turning point. Today, we're talking about 
people's lives--struck hard by an economy in chaos, facing shrinking 
services and struggling with rising prices and unemployment.
  I believe the administration's budget demonstrates that it is 
interested, after years of underinvestment in the Federal Government's 
capabilities, in protecting public health, supporting American 
agriculture, strengthening rural communities, and conserving the 
environment.
  This bill proposes new investments in these priorities and the 
agencies that can help us meet them, while making specific and sensible 
budget cuts where feasible.
  As in recent years, the bill focuses on several key areas, such as: 
Protecting public health; bolstering food nutrition programs; investing 
in rural communities; supporting agriculture research; strengthening 
animal health and marketing programs; and conserving our natural 
resources.
  The fiscal year 2010 Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill provides for 
almost $23 billion in funding. It is an 11 percent increase over 2009 
levels, the vast majority of which went toward three program areas: The 
WIC program, the FDA, and International Food Aid. Additionally, in 
order to make these important investments, to use the resources 
available to it wisely, the bill proposes a number of cuts totaling 
more than $735 million.
  To protect the public health, the bill provides a substantial 
increase for the Food and Drug Administration to support a total 
discretionary funding level of almost $3 billion, or a 15 percent 
increase--almost $373 million. That is to hire additional inspectors, 
conduct more inspections of domestic and foreign food and medical 
products. And, as many of us know, the FDA has been underfunded for far 
too long. This is not only a matter of public health and consumer 
safety, it is a matter of national and economic security.
  Not all of the dangers that threaten the health and safety of 
American families can be found in airports, border checkpoints, or 
harbor containers. Sometimes they lurk in our refrigerators and on our 
kitchen table. From E. coli in cookie dough to salmonella in peanut 
butter, we have seen very real threats posed by food contamination in 
recent years. And we just cannot afford to neglect our food safety 
system any longer.

[[Page 17105]]

  The FDA's primary responsibility is to the American people to ensure 
the safety of the food they eat, the drugs they take, and the medical 
devices they rely on. With this increased funding, they will have the 
resources and manpower they need to keep us safe.
  In addition, the bill fully funds the administration's request for 
the Food Safety and Inspection Service at the USDA, the Department of 
Agriculture. It puts in over $1 billion dollars for FSIS for the first 
time in history.
  In terms of conservation, the committee makes a significant 
investment in USDA's natural resource conservation programs. The bill 
appropriates a total of $980 million for this purpose--a $73 million 
increase over the administration's request.
  The bill rejects the administration's cuts to the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service's farm bill conservation programs, which include 
the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection 
Program, and the Wildlife Incentives Program.
  It restores funding for other valuable programs, including the 
Resource Conservation and Development Program and the Watershed and 
Flood Prevention Operations Program.
  In the area of nutrition, the bill works to improve nutrition and 
help those hit the hardest by the current economic crisis. Food costs 
and participation in WIC continue to increase at dramatic rates. And 
the bill provides $7.5 billion for WIC to serve our Nation's vulnerable 
populations--10 percent above last year--to support participation of 
10.1 million people.
  WIC is a program that we simply cannot afford to underfund any 
longer, particularly given the gravity of the current economic climate. 
Our fundamental responsibility as legislators and as leaders, to say 
nothing of basic morality and fairness, demand that we do everything we 
can to help Americans suffering right now from poverty and 
malnutrition.
  In the area of international food aid, the bill expands America's 
traditional commitment to international food aid by providing an 
increase of $464 million to the P.L. 480 Title II Grants Program. We 
also provide an additional $99.5 million to the McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
  In the area of rural development, the bill creates new opportunities 
for growth and development in the Nation's small town economies by 
increasing funding for water and wastewater infrastructure grants by 
$73 million; provides $8.7 billion for housing; $541 million for 
community facilities; and $9.3 billion for the rural utility programs.
  In research, the bill makes significant investments in agricultural 
research: $1.2 billion for the Agricultural Research Service; nearly 
$1.2 billion for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service. That money is allocated to such programs as the 
Hatch Act, Evans-Allen, the new competitive Agriculture and Food 
Research Initiative, Smith Lever, the 1890 programs, and the Veterinary 
of Medical Services Act.

                              {time}  1945

  With continuing volatility in the futures market, the bill provides 
the administration's request for the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, the CFTC, $160.6 million--$14.6 million and 10 percent 
above 2009--in order to better secure the markets from improper 
speculation. Just yesterday the CFTC moved to stem heavy speculative 
trading in the oil, natural gas and energy markets. With this increased 
funding, the Commission will be better poised to ensure market 
integrity for all honest brokers.
  In closing, I look forward to working with all of you today as we 
work to craft responsible agriculture legislation that alleviates 
short-term suffering, encourages long-term growth, invests in our 
future and reflects our priorities as a Nation.
  Let me take a moment to say thank you to our staff who have worked 
diligently to help put this bill together. The subcommittee majority 
staff: Martha Foley, our clerk; Leslie Barrack; Matthew Smith; and 
Kerstin Millius have worked closely with David Gibbons on the minority 
staff. In addition, Brian Ronholm and Letty Mederos on my staff and 
Merritt Myers from Mr. Kingston's staff all have worked very, very hard 
to bring this bill to the floor this evening. I hope the Congress will 
seize this opportunity to help American farmers and families in these 
tough times and get us moving again on the path to recovery. I urge you 
to support this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman, my counterpart, the chairwoman of the 
committee, for her great introductory remarks. I certainly support many 
parts of this bill. I want to start out by complimenting her on the 
process that we have and the relationship that we have. We have an open 
and honest relationship. We can agree to disagree and do it in an 
agreeable fashion. We have a lot of fun on the committee. We've had a 
lot of hearings. Many hearings where we are interrupted by votes and 
then we had to go back over there, sometimes it's just the Chair and I 
who go back; and we have our way with the witnesses, which is always 
fun because here in Washington we'd rather be the ones with the 
microphone than having somebody else have the microphone. We just have 
a good time with this. I think the staff works well together, and I 
want to recognize the staff for all their efforts at this time. On the 
majority staff, Martha Foley, Leslie Barrack, Jason Weller, Matt Smith, 
Kerstin Millius, Brian Ronholm and Letty Mederos. I thank everybody on 
that side for working with our folks. Our folks are Dave Gibbons, 
Merritt Myers, Meg Gilley, Bernie Tokarz and Jarr Rosenbaum who all 
worked closely with us over the years; and we appreciate the work of 
the staff.
  I think that if you look at one of the things that this bill has also 
done in this atmosphere where earmarks are under a lot of scrutiny, in 
2006 this bill had $865 million in earmarks. The bill we are looking at 
tonight has $219 million. That is a substantial reduction. In 2008 
there were about 400 earmarks in the bill, and now we're down to about 
322. So we're making a lot of progress in reducing the number of 
earmarks, and that is a good thing.
  What this bill does not have though is spending reductions; and 
unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we spend a lot of time talking about 
increase in spending, but we don't talk about efficiency and 
effectiveness. The purpose of Congress really shouldn't be just to 
spend more money on an authorized program. We should make sure that the 
programs are effective, they're efficient, and are doing their intended 
purpose. Increasing WIC or increasing food stamps, is that a good 
thing? I would challenge that premise that it's not necessarily a good 
thing. It may be a necessary thing to do. But just because we've 
increased food stamps or WIC spending, I don't think we can polish off 
our halos and pat ourselves on the back. I think it underscores a 
situation in society that we need to be addressing, some of it in this 
committee, some of it in the authorizing committee; but certainly all 
Members of Congress, what do you do to help encourage people to be more 
independent so they do not have to depend on the U.S. Congress year 
after year? Spending in this bill is up about 14 percent overall. It's 
a $123.8 billion bill. The discretionary portion is up nearly 13 
percent from about $20 billion to nearly $23 billion. The FDA is up 13 
percent, from $2.6 billion to about $3 billion; and CFTC, the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, has gone from $140 million to $160 million, 
which is about a 14 percent increase.
  Now for these increases, what will we get for the taxpayer dollar? 
What does it do for us? It just really, we know, grows the bureaucracy. 
It doesn't always get something done better or faster. I think that 
when we spend more money, we should have a measurement of the 
expectation, particularly in an economy that is floundering, an economy 
right now that has an $11 trillion national debt. I think my colleagues 
here don't need me to remind them where money comes from. We print it; 
we tax it from those who

[[Page 17106]]

have earned it; or we borrow it from countries such as China, to whom 
we owe about $622 billion right now. Truly the national debt is a big 
problem. It's not the 500-pound gorilla in the room. It's, rather, a 
whole lot of gorillas that are in the room.
  I think as a Republican, one reason why we are in the minority is 
because we spent too much money. Republicans had a brand identity of 
being fiscal conservatives, and unfortunately we threw that away. There 
was a war. There was a hurricane. There were flooding problems. There 
was terrorism. There were domestic attacks. But that's not an excuse. 
However, now, particularly with this administration, spending seems to 
be on supercharge; and as government increases in size, the private 
sector seems to decrease in size.
  Take, for example, the recently passed stimulus program, $790 billion 
in deficit spending at a time when unemployment was 8 percent; and the 
President said we have to do something that will give us drastic and 
immediate results. Now instead of that unemployment rate being 
decreased, it's almost 10 percent; and 1.5 million new people are out 
of work since the passage of the stimulus program. Yet here we are 
again tonight, saying we can pass a bill with a 14 percent increase on 
it, and that is synonymous with good. Mr. Lewis on the committee 
actually offered a substitute amendment in what we call the 302(b) 
allocation that would have actually held spending to a 2 percent 
increase over last year's level. That was rejected on a party-line 
vote. But I think Mr. Lewis was trying to say, we've got to rein in 
control of the spending because it's clear more spending does not 
create more jobs.
  There are other issues in this bill which we, in the minority, have 
tried to address through amendments. Now unfortunately despite the fact 
that we turned in to the Rules Committee 90 amendments--and I'll say I 
had not seen those amendments. I was trying to focus our minority 
efforts on about 8 to 10 to 12 particular amendments, amendments which 
I thought were substantial, substantive, that were good government, 
maybe philosophical disagreements here or there; and I had lots of 
communication with our Members. So I'm not sure where the other 70 to 
80 amendments came from. But I do know with the prefiling of amendments 
that Members are more inclined to throw a lot of amendments out there 
to the Rules Committee in order to protect themselves should they 
decide to go forward on their amendments because if they don't prefile, 
then they can't even have consideration. But because of the continuing 
practice of closed rules, most of these amendments, of course, were 
rejected. Tonight I believe we're going to be looking at two or three 
substantive amendments, then some earmark amendments, and then a couple 
of noncontroversial amendments. And I'm appreciative of that. But I do 
think that we should open up this process a lot more.
  There are other things that we should be discussing that are not in 
this bill, like a limitation on housing payments for illegal aliens. We 
need to be discussing categorical eligibility for food stamps; and this 
is a practice widespread right now in the States where if you qualify 
for one entitlement program, then you're automatically going to be 
enrolled in food stamps. What the unintended consequence of that is, 
some people who have substantial net worth are going to be able to get 
food stamps because they're unemployed. And we all know, tragically, a 
lot of people are unemployed right now; but some of them have a lot of 
assets in the bank. Yet under the State interpretations of categorical 
eligibility, they're automatically enrolled in food stamps. I think 
that's taking away food stamps from somebody who truly deserves it. We 
are unable to have an amendment on that. Also payment limitations to 
farmers who are ineligible for programs. From 2003 to 2006 the USDA 
discovered about $50 million that was paid to farmers who were not 
eligible to receive payments. I think that should be addressed in this 
bill a little more closely than it is. We did offer an amendment on 
that, but it was not supported. In 2006 the food stamp program made 
$1.29 billion in overpayments. An amendment that would have prohibited 
illegal recipients from getting the money I think would have been 
something good for this bill, but that was not accepted. There was 
another amendment offered on P.L. 480. It's interesting, P.L. 480, we 
have increased that substantially. That's our foreign food assistance 
program. It has popular, broad bipartisan support. But on the same 
hand, I don't think we had enough oversight, enough discussion as to 
why that spending needed to spike up to the tune of getting $700 
billion in a supplemental bill and then another $464 million in this 
bill. These things are of great concern to me, and we will discuss some 
of these in more detail.
  I look forward to the debate. I look forward to the amendments. 
Again, I want to close with where I started with my chairwoman. I enjoy 
working on the committee, enjoy working with the staff; and we're going 
to continue to be engaged in this process. It won't just end tonight. 
We're going to make sure that we follow this bill all the way through; 
and to the degree that the minority is able to participate, we will be 
there. But thank you for letting us work with you.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 
2997, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010.
  I thank my good friend Rosa DeLauro for her leadership on this vital 
legislation which helps put food on the table for more needy families. 
Americans are suffering through the worst economic crisis since the 
Great Depression. More and more families are forced to seek assistance 
in order to feed themselves and their loved ones. As Chair of the 
Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition, I am pleased that this 
legislation makes a strong commitment to feeding the impoverished and 
ending hunger in America. Today's legislation provides more than $7.5 
million to ensure that some of the most wonderful in our society, women 
and young children, have access to nutritious foods during these tough 
times. These funds will ensure another 700,000 women, infants and 
children will have access to WIC benefits. In addition, H.R. 2997 
provides $180 million to give nutritious foods to over half a million 
low-income senior, disabled, and women and children through the 
Commodity Supplemental Foods Program. I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. MICA. I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Kingston, for 
yielding time.
  I would have liked to have actually spoken on the rule. As some of 
you may know, I protested the rule. I didn't bring the House business 
to a halt, but I did ask several reconsiderations and a motion to 
adjourn, exercising my right in the minority, and as a House Member, to 
proceed on business that I felt was only fair and equitable as far as 
treatment of a Member when a Member has a problem in his district.
  I have the great honor and privilege of representing an urban area, a 
suburban area, and also a rural area from basically north of Orlando to 
just south of Jacksonville. The western part of the central and the 
center part of the northern part of the State is agriculture and rural. 
It is a great area. People work hard. They are some of the most 
dedicated, hardworking Americans I know.
  Unfortunately, several months ago, we had a disastrous series of 
rains. We had up to 30 inches of rain in some of the areas. I have 
pictures of potato fields. My district is one of the largest potato 
growth and farm areas in the Nation. These fields behind me here were 
all covered with water and covered for multiple days with sun and rain. 
What happened is basically the potatoes rotted and we had $50 million 
worth of damage, which really isn't a

[[Page 17107]]

huge amount of money when we deal with billions here, but it means the 
difference between life and death, between staying in business and 
keeping people employed in my district.
  I had asked the Rules Committee for a small change in a program that 
is called Supplemental Review Assistance program, and those are Federal 
programs that farmers in my district paid premiums for, participated 
in, and were eligible for. In fact, 85 percent of the potato farmers 
were eligible for participation in those programs, but the problem that 
we had, in spite of their having this insurance, is that the timing of 
the disaster was such and the rules by which they assess eligibility 
and disaster payments under SURE would arrive after the crop losses, 
because some of the data has to be computed for payment rates a year 
after the harvest. Now, that doesn't help people who are trying to do 
plantings, and we have different seasons from other parts of the United 
States. It doesn't help people who are trying to keep folks employed in 
the farm business, and it doesn't help farmers who are trying to keep 
their door open.
  I asked for a small change, and if you look at the rule, they 
actually put in some changes, and they were, I hate to say it, 
legislating on appropriations to help folks. And we normally do that. 
We help each other in the House of Representatives when our areas have 
a disaster.
  Now, I wasn't asking for any more money. I wasn't asking for another 
bigger program. There is plenty of money there. It is the timing of the 
disaster and this particular requirement to get funds and make my 
farmers eligible and farmers through this devastated area eligible.
  So I'm very disappointed. I must say that I have the highest respect 
for Mr. Kingston, and I have the greatest respect for Ms. DeLauro. They 
do a wonderful job. My argument, again, is not with you. My argument is 
with the Rules Committee that did not extend the courtesy to a Member 
to assist his district in a time of natural disaster. I intend to 
pursue this no matter what it takes. However, I have to get the 
attention of the House. We are going to find a way to bring aid to 
people in my district who just want to stay in business, who want to 
continue farming, and who want to create jobs in a very difficult 
economy and not be shut down. They have paid their dues. They have paid 
their fees.
  We are not asking for any more money. We are just asking for a slight 
change in some of the language on the funds that are available, and 
there are plenty of funds available.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I just would say to my colleague that I 
sympathize with the difficulties and the disaster that has befallen 
your district, and I would urge you to speak to the authorizing 
committee and Mr. Peterson in the Agriculture Committee for this 
effort.
  With that, let me just yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for yielding.
  I rise this evening to engage in a colloquy with the chairwoman of 
the subcommittee about the desperate state of the Nation's dairy 
industry which has experienced a disastrous collapse in prices over the 
past year. During the July recess, I had the honor of accompanying 
Chairwoman DeLauro on a visit to the Greenbacker Dairy Farm in Durham, 
Connecticut. During that visit, we heard firsthand from dairy farmers 
all across Connecticut about the difficulties that they are facing, 
particularly regarding the cost of production and the rapid decline of 
dairy prices over the past year.
  I ask the chairwoman if she could speak to this issue and what relief 
might be available to these farmers.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman for his efforts on behalf of the 
dairy industry. Over the past year, dairy farmers across the country 
have been challenged like never before. I support efforts to provide 
increased relief to these farmers. I thank you, Mr. Courtney, Mr. 
Welch, Chairman Peterson, and other Members for their efforts. I am 
committed to helping struggling dairy farmers and their families in 
Connecticut and across the country.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I thank the Chair for her response and her staunch 
support of our State and national dairy farms.
  I now yield to my distinguished colleague from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. We appreciate the gentlewoman's hard work on the 
Agriculture appropriations spending bill. As you know, dairy farmers 
are currently being paid $11 per hundredweight on milk that costs them 
$18 per hundredweight to produce. This upside-down pay scale is 
absolutely unsustainable. It has already forced dozens of Vermont 
farmers out of business.
  We unsuccessfully offered an amendment to the bill to raise the 
payment rates on the Milk Income Loss Contract program from 45 percent 
to 79 percent. While the MILC program isn't perfect, it is really a way 
to put money back in the pocket of farmers.
  We appreciate your support, and we believe that you agree that 
Congress must take action to help our struggling dairy farmers and we 
cannot wait for more farms to go out of business.
  I thank the chairwoman and look forward to continuing to work with 
her and my colleague from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank my friend from Vermont for his leadership and my 
friend from Connecticut. I applaud his continued efforts to help the 
dairy industry. I look forward to working with you.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlelady for her work on the 
bill and thank her for supporting my amendment to protect the USDA's 
organic standards and labels and to enter into a colloquy now.
  We must ensure that the Department of Agriculture's Inspector General 
has the resources to complete a thorough investigation, already 
underway, into whether current inspectors are upholding the most 
rigorous standards for organic certification and receiving adequate 
oversight. The Inspector General also needs resources to investigate 
whether nonorganic substances inappropriately remain in USDA-certified 
products. The number of nonorganic substances has ballooned from 77 in 
2002 to 245 today, and only one has been removed. If we want the 
organic label to mean something, then there must be strong standards 
for organic certification and we must uphold them.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I agree with the gentleman about the importance of 
protecting and strengthening USDA's organic standards.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 5 additional seconds.
  I was pleased to incorporate it into today's chairman's amendment, 
the amendment to increase funding to the Office of the Inspector 
General.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me first thank the gentlelady from 
Connecticut for her hard work and her dedication to moving our Nation 
forward in the area of agriculture, nutrition, health safety, and all 
of the other issues that she tackles each and every day. This bill is 
going to help millions of Americans, and I am pleased to support it.
  I rise today to enter into a colloquy to raise the important issue 
regarding the lifetime ban on food stamp eligibility for formerly 
incarcerated persons who were convicted of drug offenses. This is 
really a serious moral and ethical issue of concern to me and many 
members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Our Constitution provides the appropriate groundwork for this issue 
in article 1, section 10 in the Fifth Amendment by declaring that 
individuals are not to be subject to double jeopardy or to be subject 
to ex post facto laws.

[[Page 17108]]

After offenders have served their time, Mr. Chairman, the formerly 
incarcerated reenter society looking to improve themselves and their 
lives. As a society, this is what we want to support to reduce 
recidivism and reduce crime; however, the current policy prevents them 
access to food stamps.
  Food stamps and cash support are essential to the health and 
stability of families. Individuals with criminal convictions face 
considerable barriers, often needing transitional services and support 
to improve their ability to acquire gainful employment and transition 
after incarceration. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act prohibits anyone convicted of a drug-related felony 
from receiving both federally-funded cash assistance----
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. The point I wanted to make is that the Welfare 
Reform Act prevents anyone, and only those who were formerly convicted 
of drug felonies, from ever receiving cash assistance and food stamps, 
even after completing their sentence and overcoming an addiction.
  So I have worked with the authorizing committee and introduced H.R. 
5802, and I wanted to talk to the gentlelady tonight about this very 
important issue. I hope that sooner or later we can really repeal this 
ban because it is a barrier for those who have reentered society. They 
deserve to be able to be eligible for food stamps.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I assure the gentlewoman that we will work together to correct the 
inequity that has been in place since the 1996 welfare reform bill. I 
agree with you. The time has come to address this issue in a meaningful 
way. We are talking about individuals who have paid their debt to 
society. They should be given a new opportunity to make a new life, to 
provide food assistance for themselves and their families. It is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Let me yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlewoman. I rise to engage in a colloquy 
with the chairwoman of the subcommittee.
  Reliable economic data is critical for any industry. Congress has 
historically supported the Economic Research Service of the USDA which 
has collected and analyzed segregated organic data. Organic farming is 
one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. agriculture. The need 
and demand for this information will continue to increase.
  Though language has been included in past Agriculture appropriation 
bills that dedicates funding for the Organic Production and Marketing 
Data Initiative, it is not included this year. Only $500,000 of the 
$82.5 million budget of the Economic Research Service would help meet 
the needs of the initiative. Is it the gentlelady's opinion that the 
funding for the initiative should remain strong?
  Ms. DeLAURO. The importance of the program is clear, Mr. Kucinich, 
and you have raised a very valid point. I agree with you that the 
Organic Production and Marketing Data Initiative should be funded in 
order to compete with the rest of agricultural commodities.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
(Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the 
chairwoman of the subcommittee. I commend her efforts to expand the 
Child and Adult Care Food Program in this bill by increasing the total 
number of States authorized to serve supper through the At-Risk 
Afterschool Care program.
  According to the Food Research Action Center, the average daily 
participation of children in Wisconsin in the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program is over 63,000 kids. There is a great deal of need in my State 
and across the Nation to ensure that young people have the opportunity 
to have three nutritious meals a day.
  I would love to work with the gentlewoman and my colleague, Senator 
Kohl in the Senate, to authorize Wisconsin to serve suppers in 
Wisconsin through the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlelady for her support of the Child and 
Adult Care Food Program, and I would like to work with her very much in 
the future to expand access to meals in the At-Risk Afterschool Care 
programs. Through CACFP, 3.1 million children and 108,000 adults 
receive nutritious meals and snacks each day as part of their day care. 
The bill before us today expands the afterschool meals program to 
additional areas. I want to ensure you that we will work together to 
expand this essential program.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. With the increasing price of food and overall 
food insecurity among families and communities in today's economy, I 
welcome the opportunity to work to improve and expand the program.

                              {time}  2015

  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished chairwoman 
and the ranking member.
  I rise today to support the underlying bill and to particularly focus 
on the question of hunger in America.
  Madam Chairwoman, this past weekend I joined one of the more well-
known constituents of mine, Beyonce, who is engaged in an online 
opportunity to ensure that food banks of America are taken care of. We 
realize that in this economic recession, although we are working very 
hard with stimulus funds, that many people are in need. Families who 
work are in need of extra assistance, and so I am particularly 
interested and concerned that this legislation, the appropriations, 
will be supportive of the works of the Nation's food banks and help the 
various food banks through a number of provisions that may ensure that 
food banks are a viable part of our economic food line.
  We know that there are about 900 million, 923 million people-plus, 
that are hungry around the world or are lacking in what we call food 
security, the inability to secure the right kind of food. We know that 
developmental concerns occur in children who are not, in essence, able 
to participate or to have the kind of food security they need to have.
  So I am very pleased that again the McGovern-Dole legislation has 
been supported as International Food Aid, providing some $1.69 billion 
as requested and $464 million above 2009. I am also very glad that this 
is able to meet emergency and nonemergency humanitarian food need in 
countries stricken with natural disasters and political strife, $199.5 
million food for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Program, the same as requested, and $99.5 million above 
2009 to support education, child development and food security to some 
of the world's poorest children.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Might I also say that I am also glad that 
this legislation continues to support the Congressional Hunger Center, 
which many of us have been supporting over the years in terms of its 
funding. And, likewise, I would like to emphasize the importance, in 
conclusion, that hunger has not been overcome.
  This bill deals with many issues, nutrition, Women, Infants and 
Children, the WIC program that is so very important, the commodities, 
the supplemental food program all again focusing on the large need from 
hunger, not only internationally, but domestically.
  I want to thank the chairwoman again and would like to continue to 
work with her as this bill makes its way through the Congress.

[[Page 17109]]

  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think you are well aware of the work that 
my former colleague, Mickey Leland, has done on hunger. And I want to 
continue to work to ensure that these programs are there for the 
continuously hungry and that we will be able to distinguish it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I want to assure the gentlewoman from Texas that it is of a high 
priority for me to make sure that we address the very serious issue of 
hunger in this country and internationally, and we will spend a lot of 
time in that effort.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I want to make a statement on behalf of myself and Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts and Ms. Brown of Florida regarding the domestic catfish 
industry, and if the Chair wants to respond, fine; but we have 
discussed this.
  And it actually came a little bit late in the hearing process to do 
anything about, but I wanted to give some background. In 2008 the farm 
bill created a new USDA catfish inspection program that requires the 
USDA to define what is considered a catfish.
  Now, the reason this is important is because the FDA traditionally 
does the inspection on fish, not the USDA. But now we put in this farm 
bill, the USDA, in the catfish business. This was pushed by the 
domestic catfish industry, asserting that Chinese catfish processors 
would not be able to meet the USDA equivalency requirements of 
continuous inspection and thus could not export competing products to 
the United States.
  And as somebody who comes from farm country, I know that dealing with 
foreign competition is very tough because sometimes they subsidize 
their producers, and maybe they have different regulatory requirements 
or they have some unfair advantage over the domestic producers. And yet 
at the same time, the ability to buy food internationally often brings 
down the price, increases the quality sometimes and increases the 
number of choices for our consumers. So it is a desirable thing for the 
United States Government to want to have people import food.
  But the FDA uses a hazard analysis critical control point risk-based 
system that has worked very, very well. But now, under this, we are 
having the USDA get into the catfish inspection program, which probably 
is not as--well, it's just not going to be as effective as the FDA 
program.
  The problem is the Chinese begin to grow and export a catfish to the 
United States called the ictaluridae. And, meanwhile, the Vietnamese 
started growing something called the pangasius. And these species are 
very different. Just like a human being is different from a baboon, so 
are these two different types of fish.
  But what is happening now, the domestic catfish industry is pushing 
the USDA to adopt a broad definition of catfish beyond the ictaluridae 
and include the pangasius. And I know you got all of that, Mr. 
Chairman, because I did too the first time.
  And the concern that I have is that the USDA really does not have the 
expertise to broaden their mission to start making definitions on a 
different type fish than what the farm bill asked them to look into. So 
I am very concerned about that, as is Mr. Frank, as is Ms. Brown from 
Florida. And I know other Members are as well, and we really do not 
want to see the USDA go beyond the mission and include this pangasius 
in their definition of catfish.
  And if the chairwoman wants to respond, I would be glad to yield.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Yes, if the gentleman would yield, I would be happy to 
address the issue.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I would be happy to yield.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would just say to the gentleman that there is a need 
to improve inspections of seafood imports. As you know, less than 1 
percent gets inspected each year. And there was a lot of discussion 
about this provision during the farm bill last year.
  I, frankly, have some concerns that it would further complicate the 
organizational structure of food safety, instead of simplifying matters 
in moving that jurisdiction from the FDA to the USDA. Also, if USDA 
diverted resources to inspecting catfish, would it take away resources 
from meat and poultry inspection. And I would just say that we did 
plus-up funding to the USDA to be able to accommodate this new 
responsibility.
  Another concern I had about this provision is that moving seafood 
inspection, or even catfish inspection, is more complicated than it 
seems. There is a substantial difference between preventing outbreaks 
in meat and poultry and preventing outbreaks in seafood. And the FSIS, 
the Food Safety and Inspection Service, has no experience with 
identifying seafood pathogens.
  So I look forward to discussing this issue further with the gentleman 
in answering some of the questions that you have with regard to this.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I thank the gentlewoman, and as we both know, we 
have spent a lot of time talking also about the USDA and Chinese 
chicken and that issue. And one of the concerns that--this underscores 
the thing on catfish, that it is the USDA's domain, really. They have 
the expertise and the track record on fish, whereas the USDA has a 
track record on chicken, poultry and beef domestically; and I know that 
you do have concerns in terms of their expertise to look at the 
reimportation of poultry products from China. And I wasn't going to 
really discuss that, but, certainly, if the gentlewoman would like to, 
we have had----
  Ms. DeLAURO. Well, certainly, we have had a discussion about it over 
time. And I think the gentleman knows my position on this issue, and my 
position has not changed in a number of years.
  And it's my view that the decisions about the importation of food 
products from China are a public health issue that must not be 
entangled in trade discussions. And I understand that Chinese officials 
are suggesting a quid pro quo, if you will, and they are trying to link 
the exportation of poultry products with reopening U.S. beef exports to 
the People's Republic of China.
  Those talks, in my view, should be separate and distinct. My position 
in this area has to do with the public health of this Nation. It is 
clear that the 2006 FSIS declaration that China's safety and inspection 
system was, quote, equivalent to the U.S. system for processed poultry 
products, was based on trade goals. From a public health and a safety 
perspective, the equivalency determination was deeply flawed and cannot 
be relied on to protect U.S. consumers' safety.
  Equivalency was granted in the face of overwhelming evidence of 
contamination in Chinese processing plants and in Chinese 
slaughterhouses.
  Therefore, in my view, the ban on poultry products from China must be 
maintained. And while USDA does have a process, as you pointed out, in 
place, that process, in making a determination of equivalency for 
processing U.S. chicken in China, was flawed and was broken and has not 
worked.
  The committee, by the way, and you understand this, intends to 
undertake a thorough review of, convene hearings on the equivalency 
process in general. And what we will examine are audits of inspection, 
on-site reviews of processing facilities, laboratories, other control 
operations, increased level of port entry reinspection and information-
sharing programs with other countries.
  So I look forward to continuing this discussion and working with you 
as the committee moves forward with its examination. But in the 
meantime, the limitation in carrying out this rule needs to be 
maintained.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I thank the gentlewoman for those remarks, and I 
think that your uncertainty with the reliability of USDA on Chinese 
chicken I share with the USDA on catfish.
  There is a lot to continue to discuss. And it's interesting, Mr. 
Chairman, as we talk about our trade relations, and I think that the 
gentlewoman does make a very good point that we have to be sure that 
our desire to trade with

[[Page 17110]]

countries doesn't blur the food safety mission that we also have.
  I was reminded, though, on the 4th of July that of the $211 million 
worth of fireworks that we exploded all around the Nation, most of it 
came from China. And of the flags and buntings that we displayed on the 
4th of July, $340 million worth, most of that came from China as well.
  So we do have a great deal--we have got a big challenge in front of 
us as we look at our second largest trade partner in China to figure 
out, you know, what are some of these lines and boundaries.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would just say to the gentleman that we have a 
responsibility that whatever the food product is coming, and that food 
product from anywhere, that the country that is producing this product 
or processing this product must have the same set of equivalent 
standards that we have domestically to ensure the public health of 
people in the United States. We have witnessed over and over again in 
the last several months that we will put the public health at risk when 
children die, when people are ill from either a product that's 
domestically produced or internationally produced. We, as a Nation, and 
those of us who serve in this body, I believe, have a moral 
responsibility to do something about it.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentlewoman. I have no further speakers on 
general debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the FY 2010 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration 
Appropriations bill for the investments it makes in protecting the 
public health, bolstering food nutrition and conserving our natural 
resources.
  I am pleased that the Food and Drug Administration will receive 
$2.338 billion in discretionary funding, an increase of $299 million 
over last year. Serious gaps have been exposed in FDA's ability to 
protect the American public due to recent outbreaks and recalls of 
food-borne illnesses. We need to ensure that the FDA has the necessary 
tools and resources to fulfill its vital mission in protecting the 
American public from unsafe products. This substantial investment in 
the FDA will significantly improve food and medical products safety. In 
addition, the bill fully funds the President's request for the Food 
Safety Inspection Service, providing over $1 billion for FSIS for the 
first time in history for the inspection of meat, poultry and egg 
products.
  To help those low-income and elderly Americans struggling with rising 
food costs in this current economic crisis, this bill strengthens food 
nutrition programs by providing $61.4 billion for the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, an increase of $7.4 billion over last 
year's amount, and $7.5 billion for the Women, Infants, and Children 
(WIC) program. The funding the legislation provides will help an 
additional 700,000 women, infants, and children, which will increase 
WIC participation to over ten million people.
  As Co-Chair of the bipartisan Congressional Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
Task Force, I am particularly pleased that the bill provides almost $4 
million through the Natural Resources Conservation Services for 
Chesapeake Bay restoration activities. Providing adequate technical 
assistance to farmers, landowners, watershed groups and communities is 
critical to implementing the Farm Bill conservation programs that are 
the single most vital tool to improving the health of the Chesapeake 
Bay. This legislation provides $980.3 million for the Natural Resources 
Conservation Program to help face the demands for cleaner water, 
reduced soil erosion, and more wildlife habitat.
  Mr. Chair, I commend Chairwoman DeLauro,  Ranking Member Kingston and 
the rest of the subcommittee for its work on this legislation and urge 
my colleagues' support.
   Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support 
of the underlying legislation, H.R. 2997 the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act of 2010.
  My district is home to some of the most fertile farm land as well as 
some of the hardest working families farmers in the nation.
  As you drive through my district, you see fields full of dry beans, 
sugar beets, corn, wheat, soybeans, various vegetables, and other crops 
needed to feed our nation and indeed the world.
  We have thriving cattle, pork, and dairy industries as well.
  While so many identify Michigan with manufacturing, we sometimes 
forget that agriculture is Michigan's second leading industry--and the 
bright spot in a struggling Michigan economy.
  This bill is important because it provides much needed funding for 
the Farm Services Agency which administers disaster and loan programs, 
farm commodities and conservation programs directed toward producers.
  The bill also goes a long way in providing money for continued 
agriculture research which is so important in increasing yields and 
furthering education for our producers. This measure also includes 
essential programs to assist those living in rural communities and 
extends programs that keep the quality of our food safe.
  Finally, this bill also provides an important benefit to the Great 
Lakes, a national treasure which represent 20% of the world's 
freshwater supply. This bill exceeds the President's Budget and the 
FY2009 levels for funding for the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service which help protect wetlands and wildlife habitat.
  While there are certainly challenges with this bill--namely an 
increase in spending over last year--it is vital that we move this 
important funding bill forward. It is my hope that in conference we can 
find additional savings to bring total spending down, but this bill 
does represent spending that will provide sufficient support for an 
industry that is important to our national economy and necessary to 
make certain that America remains the greatest food producer in the 
world. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2997, the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill. This bill wisely devotes half of the 
total appropriations in the entire bill to the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly called the Food Stamp Program.
  The face of hunger takes many forms. This week while driving in my 
district I saw a homeless woman who suffered from chronic hunger, 
begging on the street corner. When the most basic need for food goes 
unmet, the most basic functions of living that so many of us take for 
granted become difficult, if not impossible. It threatens the economic 
and social well-being of the affected person, and sometimes the entire 
family. And while this homeless and hungry soul is an apt example of 
the face of hunger, the truth is that food insecurity is hurting far 
more than just the severely disadvantaged. Food insecurity is hurting 
our middle class, our children and our seniors among others. During 
difficult economic times like these, hunger's invisibility belies its 
startling prevalence.
  In the United States 1 in 8 or approximately 36 million Americans 
struggle with hunger, 13 million of which are children. According to 
the USDA 1 in 6 American children are food insecure. One out of every 
five children under five years of age is living at risk of hunger in 13 
states around our nation.
  In my home state of Ohio, 12.7 percent of Ohioans are food insecure; 
18.7 percent of Ohio's children are food insecure; and 23.3 percent of 
children under the age of five are food insecure. Ohio has recently 
been reported to have the third highest rate of food insecure children 
under the age of 5 in the nation.
  Uncertain times in our country and economy are even more uncertain 
for these children as their malnutrition will have a long-lasting 
impact on their future development. Proper nutrition throughout life is 
important but research tells us that for children three and under it is 
particularly important as this is the time that children build a 
foundation for the rest of their life. It is precisely the time when 
their brains and central nervous systems are growing the fastest. A 
good foundation is essential to a child's future health, including 
mental health, educational accomplishment and economic viability.
  Recent reports indicate that across our nation, 33.8 million people 
were enrolled in SNAP in April 2009. This is a new record and an 
increase of 20 percent over last year. It is expected that SNAP will 
serve approximately 35 million Americans in Fiscal Year 2010. According 
to a study from the Center for Community Solutions, portions of my 
district, including Lakewood, Fairview Park and Parma, have experienced 
a 74 percent increase in participation in the Food Stamp Program (now 
called SNAP) between 2002 and 2007. Furthermore, our local food bank, 
the Cleveland Food Bank, has significantly increased distribution since 
the start of the current fiscal year. Already they have distributed 
three million more pounds of food in the current fiscal year than was 
distributed in the entire prior year. By October 2009 it is expected 
that this number will increase to four million pounds. In Northeast 
Ohio local food pantries have experienced a 35 percent increase in 
clients. Many of these clients are first time users of the food bank.
  Policy Matters Ohio released a report in February 2009 that found 
that over 2.8 million

[[Page 17111]]

Ohioans--roughly 25 percent--are not earning enough income to meet 
their basic needs. The latest unemployment statistics for the State of 
Ohio show that unemployment is still on the rise at 10.8 percent. The 
national unemployment rate is 9.5 percent. These numbers are expected 
to increase in the coming weeks and months.
  The resources that are allocated to SNAP by this bill are desperately 
needed. I support this bill and urge its passage.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2997, the 
FY2010 Agriculture Appropriations bill, which makes important 
investments in agricultural research; conservation, rural development, 
and nutrition programs; as well as a number of other programs that 
support agriculture and rural communities in our nation.
  I am very grateful to the Committee, and especially to Chair Rosa 
DeLauro, for support of many of my high-priority requests and for 
recognizing the special challenges faced by Hawaii farmers.
  Yesterday as we were getting ready to begin debate, I was surprised 
to learn that another member had filed an amendment to eliminate 
funding for one of my Hawaii requests included in the final bill. The 
amendment would have eliminated a $153,000 earmark, titled Agricultural 
Diversification in Hawaii, to assist Hawaii farmers succeed in growing 
and marketing new crops to replace sugarcane and pineapple. It was a 
bit disappointing because the amendment was drafted by a member from 
Texas, a state that enjoys far more substantial federal support for its 
farmers in the form of direct payments and other agricultural services 
than Hawaii.
  Ultimately, the member from Texas decided not to offer his amendment. 
If he had, I would have offered the following defense for this 
important program.
  Hawaii is the most geographically isolated state.
  Hawaii imports 85 percent of the food consumed by residents and 
visitors and is estimated to have a 4-7 day food supply in the event of 
a shipping disruption of any kind.
  Our major agricultural industries of sugar and pineapple production 
have declined precipitously in the last 15 years. Of our last two sugar 
companies, one announced it was going out of business last year. Our 
longstanding leaders in pineapple production have moved their fruit 
production operations out of the state. As a result, Hawaii has been 
making a difficult transition from plantation to diversified 
agriculture.
  Increased food production for local and export markets is a key 
component to addressing food security in Hawaii.
  Most of the research done in mainland university and research 
institutions does not have much relevance in Hawaii. We grow different 
crops and have a year-round growing season, which means year-round pest 
and disease issues.
  There are no large national agricultural organizations to lobby for 
the interests of papaya, pineapple, banana, or coffee farmers. Rice and 
cotton growers in Texas can find support from growers in other states 
who will make sure that their needs are understood and met.
  The Hawaii Agricultural Diversification program has evolved over time 
from identifying alternative crops to replace sugarcane and pineapple, 
to assessments on aquaculture crops, to the current emphasis on 
tropical fruits.
  The overall tropical fruit industry in Hawaii comprises nearly 1300 
farmers who produce crops for tropical fruit markets with an annual 
farm gate value of more than $30 million.
  Included in this agricultural industry are banana, guava, papaya, 
avocados, and wide range of tropical specialty fruits such as rambutan, 
lychee, and longan.
  While the total acreage and the total number of farms increased in 
2007, these growers are small farmers, averaging less than 5 acres per 
farm in production. These farmers have limited resources and do not 
have the means to conduct the R & D to support their industry. This 
funding provides means for stakeholder-driven research and development 
in support of the industry.
  The main problems faced by Hawaii tropical fruit growers include pest 
management strategies, phytosanitary export protocols, and refined 
market information to guide production.
  For example, two major Hawaii Tropical Specialty Fruits, rambutan and 
longan, are grown for export to the U.S. mainland but face stiff 
competition with foreign countries, such as from Thailand, where labor 
and other input costs are much lower. Research funds have been devoted 
to finding best management practices for post-harvest handling of 
rambutan and longan to identify the fungal diseases that damage fruit 
and accelerate spoilage during shipment. Research, done collaboratively 
with USDA Agricultural Research Service, has identified methods to 
extend rambutan and longan shelf-life and to maintain higher quality 
fruit during shipment, giving Hawaii growers a competitive advantage 
over cheap foreign competition.
  Hawaii has an image of being a paradise. Hawaii is beautiful, but at 
the same time we are also very vulnerable to any downturn in the U.S. 
or international economies. Our biggest industry, tourism, has been hit 
hard by the recession. Our geographic isolation means that everything 
is more expensive, including inputs for agriculture.
  My district, which includes all of Hawaii (7 inhabited islands) 
except for the city of Honolulu, is largely rural and most of our 
residents would like it to stay that way. We have a long agricultural 
tradition and history and are struggling to adjust to changing markets 
without the safety net that most states that grow program crops (like 
cotton, rice, and corn) enjoy. Despite the fact that Hawaii farmers are 
not able to take advantage of many of the programs that benefit 
mainland farmers, I have consistently supported farmers throughout the 
country and simply ask that my fellow members also support Hawaii's 
hard-working farmers.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chair, I rise tonight in reluctant support of this 
legislation. While H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 
2010 provides critical funding for the United States Department of 
Agriculture, including important initiatives that I helped put in the 
2008 Farm Bill, it falls short for some rural Americans.
  USDA funding is critical to our nation, and H.R. 2997 ensures USDA 
can continue its good work. This bill provides more than $2.8 billion 
for rural development, 4 percent more than in 2009, for investments 
such as rural housing, water projects, community facilities and 
economic development efforts. These rural initiatives not only sustain 
our rural communities, but also create new opportunities for growth and 
development in our nation's small towns. At a time when our rural 
economies are suffering, this funding provides a desperately needed 
hand up, and a way to spur continued growth and maintenance for 
existing infrastructure.
  To protect American agriculture, the safety of our nation's food 
supply, and to spur the continued research that makes our land grant 
universities the pinnacle of the world's agriculture research centers, 
the bill provides nearly $1.2 billion for the Agricultural Research 
Service, $1.3 billion for important agricultural research at the 
National Institute for Food and Agriculture, and $881 million to fund 
programs that protect American agriculture against animal and plant 
diseases. As the representative of the district that contains the main 
campus of North Carolina State University, one of our nation's finest 
land grant and agricultural research institutions, I am proud that the 
research funds within the bill will continue to allow these students 
and researchers to do their good work for American agriculture and the 
consumers who eat the healthy food American farmers produce, here at 
home and across the globe.
  Conservation efforts were sadly diminished under the last 
Administration, but this bill provides $980 million for conservation 
programs at USDA, 8 percent above the President's request and 1 percent 
above 2009. Funding provided in H.R. 2997 for the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service will improve service in the field, and deliver 
conservation to protect the environment. The bill rejects $267 million 
in proposed cuts to farm bill conservation priorities, including the 
Wetlands Reserve Program, Farmland Protection Program, and Wildlife 
Habitat Incentives Program. These initiatives ensure that our children 
inherit the legacy of a clean environment and a healthy rural America. 
They deserve no less than what we enjoyed growing up.
  To help the most needy in our society, H.R. 2997 provides more than 
$7.5 billion to provide proper nutrition to mothers and their children, 
supporting healthy food for up to an additional 700,000 women, infants, 
and children. The funds provided in this bill will help bring needed 
WIC assistance to more than ten million people. It also sets aside $125 
million for the upcoming WIC reauthorization, including a number of 
program improvements such as increasing fruit and vegetable vouchers, 
implementing the electronic benefit transfer system, and expanding the 
breast feeding peer counseling program.
  There are many good things in this bill. But while the bill provides 
basic support for our nation's farmers, it leaves out some of the 
farmers most in need and may harm many of our livestock and poultry 
producers.
  Mr. Chair, the people who live in my district are suffering. With 
double digit unemployment in every county in my district, we are 
experiencing some of the worst economic conditions

[[Page 17112]]

in the nation. My farmers are suffering as well. I have poultry growers 
and livestock producers who are on the verge of losing their homes. 
This bill should include Section 32 funding, that I requested, for 
economic disaster assistance for these producers, producers who work 
hard to raise thousands of birds for our family tables but are not 
eligible for any traditional assistance at USDA. This provision would 
have helped nearly a thousand poultry producers in a dozen states who 
have lost their contracts. These folks have nowhere else to turn for a 
bridge that will allow them to keep their farms. When we are giving 
bailouts to Wall Street and the auto industry, we owe it to rural 
America to lend a hand to those who reside on Main Street. But, 
unfortunately, the committee did not include this provision.
  I am also concerned about a provision put into this bill that extends 
a ban on imports of processed poultry meat from China. This is already 
threatening to hurt not only U.S. poultry producers, but also pork and 
beef producers who depend on the Chinese market. While I share 
Chairwoman DeLauro's desire to make sure that our food is safe, 
arbitrary restrictions do not forward our goals. Congress should rely 
on the food safety efforts of USDA and FDA, and insist on continued 
oversight of these agencies. We must work to improve Chinese food 
safety in a manner that protects U.S. consumers, but that is also 
consistent with our international obligations on fair trade. Singling 
out our largest trading partner may lead to retaliation that would 
threaten an already suffering industry. It is my hope that this 
provision will be removed from the bill during conference.
  Mr. Chair, I will vote for H.R. 2997, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same. But I also urge those in Leadership, and the Chair of this 
committee, to think of North Carolina's poultry farmers, and livestock 
producers across the country, as this bill goes to conference. I hope 
to work together in the future to ensure that future legislation is 
more inclusive of all of our farmers and people in need.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. 
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2010, and commend Chairwoman 
DeLauro and the subcommittee for their hard work in crafting this bill. 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
  This bill will increase funding to many important programs that 
American families rely on for their health and well-being, especially 
during these challenging economic times. For example, the bill will 
provide $61.4 billion in funding for the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamps), an increase of 15 percent 
above the funding currently available. With family incomes falling and 
unemployment rising, these funds are needed more than ever to enable 
low-income families to purchase food.
  In addition, the bill provides $16.8 billion in funding for child 
nutrition programs, an increase of 12 percent above the funding 
currently available, and $7.5 billion for the Women, infants and 
Children (WIC) nutrition program, a 10 percent increase above the 
currently available funding. These funds will enable children all over 
America to receive nutritious school lunches and breakfasts, and 
provide food packages containing nutritional supplements to children 
and pregnant and breast-feeding women who are nutritionally at risk 
because they lack the income to provide adequate nutrition.
  The bill also includes $180 million, 11 percent more than provided in 
the prior fiscal year, for the Commodity Supplement Food Program, to 
provide nutritious food to over a half million low-income women, 
infants, children, and elderly citizens struggling to make ends meet. 
The bill will expand this assistance beyond the 32 states currently 
receiving it, to six new states: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Delaware, Utah, 
Georgia and my home state of New Jersey. The Emergency Food Assistance 
Program and the Farmers Market Nutrition Program also receive 
substantial funding: $50 million and $20 million respectively.
  And the bill contains substantial funding for international food 
assistance, including $1.7 billion for the Food for Peace Program, 13 
percent more than currently provided, and $200 million for the 
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Program, to provide food security and education and developmental 
support for the world's neediest children.
  And I am particularly pleased that this bill includes the full amount 
of funding for most of the organic programs I had requested funding 
for. For example, it includes $5 million for the Organic Transitions 
Research program, to facilitate the ability of farmers to convert to 
organic methods of production, $20 million for the Organic Agriculture 
Research and Extension Initiative, and $5 million each for the 
Community Food Projects and Hunger Free Communities programs, to 
facilitate the development of community gardens, community supported 
agriculture projects, farmers markets, and similar community food 
security projects.
  Especially, I am also pleased that my amendment to the bill to 
protect and strengthen the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 
organic standards was included in the Manager's Amendment to the bill 
on the floor today. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that the USDA 
Inspector General has the resources it needs to complete a thorough 
investigation, already underway, into whether or not current inspectors 
are ensuring that the most rigorous standards for certification are 
honored when determining if a product may bear the ``USDA Organic'' 
label. In addition, the Inspector General needs sufficient resources to 
investigate whether or not non-organic substances inappropriately 
remain allowed in small amounts in USDA certified products after 
organic alternatives have been discovered; as the Washington Post 
reported last week, since the list of allowable non-organic substances 
was created in 2002, the number of such non-organic substances has 
ballooned from 77 to 245, and only one such substance has been removed.
  As noted in the Washington Post article, the program's lax standards 
are undermining the program and the law, prompting the author of the 
law, Senator Leahy, to state pointedly that ``it will unravel 
everything we've done if the standards can no longer be trusted . . . 
if we don't protect the brand, the organic label, the program is 
finished.'' Indeed, the explosive growth of the industry itself 
requires us to increase our vigilance accordingly. Therefore, I thank 
and commend Chairwoman DeLauro for her support and leadership on this 
issue, and for including my amendment in the bill.
  This bill funds many important nutritional and agricultural programs, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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.
  No amendment shall be in order except the amendments printed in part 
A and B of House Report 111-191, not to exceed one of the amendments 
printed in part C of the report if offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) or his designee; not to exceed three of the 
amendments printed in part D of the report if offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) or his designee; and not to exceed one of the 
amendments printed in part E of the report if offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) or his designee. Each amendment shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question. An amendment printed 
in part B, C, D, or E of the report may be offered only at the 
appropriate point in the reading.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2997

       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 the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010, and for other purposes, namely:


             Part A Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

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

       Part A amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. DeLauro:
       Page 3, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 5, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $500,000)''.
       Page 5, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $500,000)''.
       Page 6, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 8, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 9, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 10, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,519,000)''.
       Page 11, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 11, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $519,000)''.

[[Page 17113]]

       Page 25, line 22, after each of the dollar amounts, insert 
     ``(reduced by $519,000)''.
       Page 57, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $235,000,000)''.
       Page 57, line 20, strike ``and''.
       Page 57, line 23, insert before the colon the following: 
     ``; and $235,000,000 shall be derived from tobacco product 
     user fees authorized by section 919 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by section 101 of the Family 
     Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Public Law 111-
     31), and shall be credited to this account and remain 
     available until expended''.
       Page 57, line 25, strike ``and animal generic drug'' and 
     insert ``animal generic drug, and tobacco product''.
       Page 58, line 21, strike ``(7) not to exceed $115,882,000'' 
     and insert the following: ``(7) $216,523,000 shall be for the 
     Center for Tobacco Products and for related field activities 
     in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (8) not to exceed 
     $117,225,000''.
       Page 58, line 25, strike ``(8) not to exceed $168,728,000'' 
     and insert ``(9) not to exceed $171,526,000''.
       Page 59, line 2, strike ``(9) not to exceed $185,793,000'' 
     and insert ``(10) not to exceed $200,129,000''.
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  There is appropriated, for the grant program for 
     the purpose of obtaining and adding to an anhydrous ammonia 
     fertilizer nurse tank a substance to reduce the amount of 
     methamphetamine that can be produced from any anhydrous 
     ammonia removed from the nurse tank as authorized by section 
     14203 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (21 
     U.S.C. 864a), hereby derived from the amount provided in this 
     Act for ``Rural Development Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $2,000,000.
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for first-class travel by 
     the employees of agencies funded by this Act in contravention 
     of sections 301-10.122 through 301-10.124 of title 41, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and it contains 
several provisions.
  First, it appropriates the tobacco fees authorized in the recent 
tobacco bill to start up the new Tobacco Control Program as authorized 
under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
  The amendment also provides increases of $2 million for the 
Agriculture Research Service and $3 million for the National Institute 
of Food and Agriculture. It increases funding for the Office of the 
Inspector General. It raises the funding level for the Higher Education 
Multicultural Scholars Program to $1.5 million; provides $2 million for 
the Methamphetamine Inhibitor Grant Program authorized in the farm 
bill; and prohibits first-class travel by employees funded in the bill 
if it violates existing rules.
  The increases are fully offset by small reductions to administrative 
programs. It is a noncontroversial amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Opposition of this amendment has nothing to do with the Agriculture 
Committee as much as it does the Rules Committee because there were so 
many amendments that the Rules Committee did not allow by the minority, 
and the reason that the Rules Committee said they did not allow them 
was because they were authorizing on an appropriation bill. This is 
authorizing on an appropriation bill. While there is a good reason for 
it, it is still something that I think is philosophically inconsistent 
with what the Rules Committee has been telling us for the last 24 
hours. I will ask for a recorded vote on this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would just indicate that the Rules 
Committee did make the amendment in order. As I say, it is a 
noncontroversial amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE I

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                  Production, Processing and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, $5,285,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000 
     of this amount shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses, not otherwise provided for, as 
     determined by the Secretary.

                       Office of Tribal Relations

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Tribal Relations, 
     $1,000,000, to support communication and consultation 
     activities with Federally Recognized Tribes, as well as other 
     requirements established by law.

                          Executive Operations


                     office of the chief economist

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Economist, $13,032,000.


          Part B Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Brady of Texas

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I call up my amendment made in 
order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Brady of Texas:
       Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,000)''.
       Page 8, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Brady) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to shift 
$50,000 from the Office of the Chief Economist at the USDA to the 
Economic Research Service.
  The goal of this amendment is to have the Office of the Chief 
Economist work jointly with the Economic Research Service and the 
Foreign Agriculture Service to conduct an independent, objective study 
on the potential growth in U.S. agriculture exports that would result 
from implementation of the pending trade promotion agreements with 
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea within 90 days of this legislation 
becoming law.
  Additionally, the Department of Agriculture would also report on the 
potential impact of U.S. agriculture exports if these agreements are 
not implemented.
  In each case, the USDA would analyze the impacts of changes in 
exports on agriculture sector jobs, wages, farm income, and commodity 
prices.
  As many of you know, each of these countries have signed or are 
negotiating trade agreements with several countries that are major 
competitors for America's farmers and ranchers. I know we are all 
concerned about the potential loss of competitiveness that families and 
workers in our agriculture sector would face if the pending trade 
agreements are not implemented.
  While there has been some analysis of the impact of the pending trade 
agreements on American farmers and ranchers, much of this analysis is 
outdated. For example, the study by the U.S. International Trade 
Commission on the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement was published 
in December 2006 and relied on trade data from 2005. Obviously, 
conditions have changed since then.
  In these difficult economic times, Congress, now more than ever, must 
pursue policies to enhance the competitiveness of America's farmers and 
ranchers. And since 95 percent of all consumers live outside the United 
States, increasing exports, finding new customers for American farmers 
and ranchers, are a vital component of that effort.
  The analysis conducted as a result of this amendment will help 
Members of

[[Page 17114]]

Congress understand fully the importance of leveling the playing field 
for America's farmers and ranchers by considering and implementing the 
pending trade agreements.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, although I plan to support the amendment, 
I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Connecticut is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I want to first say to the gentleman from Texas, to be 
clear and have real clarity about this amendment, this would transfer 
$50,000 from the Office of the Chief Economist to the Economic Research 
Service.
  The gentleman's amendment does not address trade or trade agreements. 
It is a simple transfer of funds from the Office of the Chief Economist 
to the ERS, without any designation of what the disposition of those 
funds are. I want to be absolutely clear about that.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yes, Madam Chairman, we were very respectful of 
the House rules on those issues. Clearly an intent of this discussion 
tonight is to have this study conducted, but we were very respectful of 
the House rules.
  Ms. DeLAURO. As I said, I plan to support the amendment, but the 
amendment as I say makes that transfer. I did not choose the offset 
that is included, and we may need to revisit that in conference. But I 
would be happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chair, I would like to call up my amendment, 
made in order under the rule, to shift $50,000 from Office of the Chief 
Economist at USDA to the Economic Research Service (ERS).
  The goal of this amendment is to have the Office of the Chief 
Economist work jointly with the Economic Research Service and the 
Foreign Agriculture Service to conduct a study on the potential growth 
in U.S. agriculture exports that would result from implementation of 
the pending trade promotion agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South 
Korea within 90 days of this legislation becoming law.
  Additionally, USDA would also report on the potential impact on U.S. 
agriculture exports if these agreements are not implemented.
  In each case, USDA would analyze the impacts of changes in exports on 
agriculture sector employment, wages, farm income, and commodity 
prices.
  As I am sure you know, each of these countries has signed or is 
negotiating trade agreements with several countries that are major 
competitors for U.S. farmers and ranchers. I know we are all concerned 
about the potential loss of competitiveness the families and workers in 
our agriculture sector would face if the pending trade agreements are 
not implemented.
  Previous studies by the International Trade Commission show the 
benefits of these agreements. Taken together, they could increase all 
U.S. exports by over $12 billion. This new study would give us an 
opportunity to update this information and focus specifically on the 
U.S. agriculture sector.
  In these difficult economic times, Congress, now more than ever, must 
pursue policies to enhance the competitiveness of America's farmers and 
ranchers. Since 95 percent of all consumers are outside of the United 
States, increasing exports are a vital component of that effort.
  The analysis conducted as a result of my amendment would help Members 
of Congress understand the importance of leveling the playing field for 
America's farmers and ranchers by implementing the pending trade 
agreements.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       national appeals division

       For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division, 
     $15,289,000.


                 office of budget and program analysis

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program 
     Analysis, $9,436,000.


                      office of homeland Security

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Homeland Security, 
     $2,494,000.

                    Office of Advocacy and Outreach

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Advocacy and 
     Outreach, $3,000,000.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, $61,579,000.


             Part B Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Capito

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

       Part B amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. Capito:
       Page 3, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,038,000)''.
       Page 46, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,038,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, as we know, funding for rural water 
projects is vital to the quality of life in our local communities. 
Small communities have the greatest difficulty providing safe, 
affordable public drinking water due to their limited resources, and 
this amendment is designed to help address this challenge.
  Helping small communities better manage their water resources is 
absolutely critical to rural America. Across this country, over 90 
percent of the community water systems serve a population of less than 
10,000 people, and are eligible to receive support from the USDA Water 
and Waste Disposal programs.
  USDA water loans and grants allow communities to build or extend 
water systems and repay the loans at reasonable rates and terms. These 
important programs provide small communities that possess limited 
technical and financial resources the tools they need to protect their 
drinking water quality.
  Small and rural communities rely on technical assistance and training 
from their State rural water associations to overcome their lack of 
economies of scale, provide critical onsite technical expertise, and 
comply with Federal rules and regulations. Without this assistance, 
many could not construct new systems, expand existing ones, or comply 
with mandates.
  My amendment would restore funding of the Rural Water and Wastewater 
Disposal program to the fiscal year 2009 level, and ensure that 
communities have access to the technical resources they need to supply 
safe and affordable water.
  At the President's request, the committee reduced funding to the 
Rural Water and Wastewater Disposal program by $10.038 million. But 
just yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the 
Rural Water and Waste Disposal program receive $22.5 million above the 
President's request.
  We must continue to protect important rural water systems which are 
critical to the economic viability of any small community by 
maintaining funding for the Rural Water and Wastewater Disposal 
program. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, although I plan to support the amendment, 
I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Connecticut is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeLAURO. This amendment does transfer $10.038 million from the 
Office of Chief Information Officer to the Rural Water and Waste 
Disposal program. I support more funding for water and waste programs. 
I did not again here in this instance choose the offset that is 
included, and we may need to revisit that in the conference. I urge

[[Page 17115]]

adoption of the amendment. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the chairwoman for her support for this 
amendment. I would like to mention that I did circulate a letter in 
support of this program, and we had great bipartisan support in that 
letter and I appreciate the support across the aisle. I would like to 
thank the ranking member as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West Virginia will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, $6,466,000: Provided, That no funds made available 
     by this appropriation may be obligated for FAIR Act or 
     Circular A-76 activities until the Secretary has submitted to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 
     and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives a report on the Department's 
     contracting out policies, including agency budgets for 
     contracting out.


           Part B Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Fortenberry

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

       Part B amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Fortenberry:
       Page 3, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having an opportunity to 
offer this amendment to promote renewable energy in rural America.
  America needs a bold new energy division, and I believe this 
amendment can help. Our sustainable energy future must include the 
integration of conservation, as well as new technologies, powered by 
clean renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass and biofuels.

                              {time}  2045

  Specifically, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would transfer $2 million 
from the United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief 
Information Officer to the Rural Energy for America Program.
  While I do recognize the importance of funding for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer and its role in providing enhanced technology 
at the Department of Agriculture, this appropriations bill does provide 
a $44 million increase for the office compared to last year. I believe 
it is appropriate to transfer a small amount of that increase, $2 
million, to our Nation's renewable energy efforts. Specifically, again, 
my amendment shifts this funding to the Rural Energy for America 
Program, known as REAP. The REAP program funds a wide range of 
renewable energy projects that stimulate rural economies, help create 
jobs, and address environmental concerns. This funding promotes energy 
efficiency and renewable energy production and is directed to farming 
communities and rural small businesses.
  I would also like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that in last year's 
farm bill there is included a new program that has parallel goals to 
REAP and is designed to create models of energy independence on a rural 
community level. This new program, the Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency 
Initiative, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to 
up to five eligible rural communities annually. The pilot program 
grants would be used to develop an integrated renewable energy system 
in order to increase energy self-sufficiency through technologies as 
well as other renewable sources, such as biofuels, biomass, biogas, 
geothermal, and wind and solar, resulting in model systems and best 
practices that could be replicated elsewhere in the Nation.
  Because of the importance of this new program, it is my hope that the 
$2 million provided in this amendment, should it pass, would be 
directed to the Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative as the 
appropriations process moves forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I do believe that renewable energy is changing today's 
agriculture and rural communities. It is clearly in our national 
interest to help rural communities integrate a wide variety of 
renewable energy sources and technologies as we move toward energy 
independence and environmental security.
  New development and signs of interest in renewable energy production 
are booming, Mr. Chairman, and I am proud that my own State, Nebraska, 
is a leader in creating green jobs in the country.
  This amendment does strengthen Congress' resolve to creatively 
appropriate monies for the best practices in regards to renewable 
resources and develop new energy options throughout our country.
  I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, though I plan to support the amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Connecticut is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeLAURO. This amendment, as has been stated, increases funding 
for the Rural Energy for America Program by $2 million, taking that 
funding from the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
  The 2008 farm bill provided significant amounts of mandatory funding 
for this program, and this bill before us today increases that 
investment towards energy independence. I did not choose the offset 
that's included, and we may need to revisit that in conference, but I 
am a strong supporter of these efforts.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment and would ask for a ``yes'' vote 
on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I would like to thank the chairwoman of the 
committee for her support of this amendment. It's important. Clearly, 
we have a similar vision on a bold, new, sustainable energy vision for 
the country, and I think this is important and will help very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The 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, $888,000.

                         Office of Civil Rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $23,922,000.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Administration, $700,000.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments


                     (including transfers of funds)

       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. 
     486, 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

[[Page 17116]]

     and facilities, and for related costs, $326,982,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $224,401,000 shall 
     be available for payments to the General Services 
     Administration for rent; of which $13,500,000 for payment to 
     the Department of Homeland Security for building security 
     activities; and of which $89,081,000 for buildings operations 
     and maintenance expenses: Provided, That the Secretary can 
     use up to $69,000,000 of these funds to cover shortfalls 
     incurred in prior year rental payments: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary is authorized to transfer funds from a 
     Departmental agency to this account to recover the full cost 
     of the space and security expenses of that agency that are 
     funded by this account when the actual costs exceed the 
     agency estimate which will be available for the activities 
     and payments described herein.

                     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.), $5,125,000, 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.

                      Departmental Administration


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For Departmental Administration, $41,319,000, 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: Provided, That this appropriation 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 of the 
     amount appropriated, $13,000,000 is for stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities to be carried out under the 
     authority provided by title XIV of the Food and Agriculture 
     Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) and other applicable 
     laws.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of 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, $3,968,000: Provided, That these funds 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 by this 
     appropriation 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: Provided 
     further, That no other funds appropriated to the Department 
     by this Act shall be available to the Department for support 
     of activities of congressional relations.

                        Office of Communications

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Communications, 
     $9,722,000.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     including employment pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, $88,781,000, 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, $43,601,000.

  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, $620,000.

                       Economic Research Service

       For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service, 
     $82,478,000.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

       For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural 
     Statistics Service, $161,830,000, of which up to $37,908,000 
     shall be available until expended for the Census of 
     Agriculture.

                     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, 
     $1,155,568,000: 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 
     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 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, $35,000,000, 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, $708,004,000, as follows: to carry out 
     the provisions of the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-i), 
     $215,000,000; for grants for cooperative forestry research 
     (16 U.S.C. 582a through a-7), $28,000,000; for payments to 
     eligible institutions (7 U.S.C. 3222), $48,000,000, provided 
     that each institution receives no less than $1,000,000; for 
     special grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $70,676,000; for 
     competitive grants on improved pest control (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(c)), $15,945,000; for competitive grants (7 U.S.C. 
     450(i)(b)), $210,000,000, to remain available until expended; 
     for the support of animal health and disease programs (7 
     U.S.C. 3195), $2,950,000; for the 1994 research grants 
     program for 1994 institutions pursuant to section 536 of 
     Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), $1,610,000, to remain 
     available until expended; for rangeland research grants (7 
     U.S.C. 3333), $983,000; for higher education graduate 
     fellowship grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)), $3,859,000, to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for a 
     program pursuant to section 1415A of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3151a), $4,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended; for higher education challenge grants (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(b)(1)), $5,654,000; for a higher education multicultural 
     scholars program (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(5)), $981,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for an education 
     grants program for Hispanic-serving Institutions (under 7 
     U.S.C. 3241), $10,000,000; for competitive grants for the 
     purpose of carrying out all provisions of 7 U.S.C. 3156 to 
     individual eligible institutions or consortia of eligible 
     institutions in Alaska and in Hawaii, with funds awarded 
     equally to each of the States of Alaska and Hawaii, 
     $3,196,000; for a secondary agriculture education program and 
     two-year post-secondary education (7 U.S.C. 3152(j)), 
     $983,000; for aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322), $3,928,000; 
     for sustainable agriculture research and education (7 U.S.C. 
     5811), $14,399,000; for a program of capacity building grants 
     (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to institutions eligible to receive 
     funds under 7 U.S.C. 3221 and 3222, $20,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for payments to 
     the 1994 Institutions pursuant to section 534(a)(1) of Public 
     Law 103-382, $3,342,000; for resident instruction grants for 
     insular areas under section 1491 of the National Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 3363), $1,000,000; for distance education grants for 
     insular areas under section 1490 of the National Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 3362), $1,000,000; for competitive grants for the 
     purpose of carrying out section 7526 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to eligible 
     institutions, $3,000,000; for a new era rural technology 
     program pursuant to section 1473E of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3319e), $1,000,000; and for necessary expenses 
     of Research and Education Activities, $38,498,000, of which 
     $2,704,000 for the Research, Education, and Economics 
     Information System

[[Page 17117]]

     and $2,136,000 for the Electronic Grants Information System, 
     are to remain available until expended.


              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, $485,466,000, as follows: 
     payments for cooperative extension work under the Smith-Lever 
     Act, to be distributed under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said 
     Act, and under section 208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for 
     retirement and employees' compensation costs for extension 
     agents, $295,000,000; payments for extension work at the 1994 
     Institutions under the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)), 
     $4,321,000; payments for the nutrition and family education 
     program for low-income areas under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $68,000,000; payments for the pest management program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $9,791,000; payments for the farm 
     safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, $4,863,000; 
     payments for New Technologies for Ag Extension under section 
     3(d) of the Act, $1,500,000; payments to upgrade research, 
     extension, and teaching facilities at institutions eligible 
     to receive funds under 7 U.S.C. 3221 and 3222, $21,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended; payments for youth-at-
     risk programs under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, 
     $8,396,000; for youth farm safety education and certification 
     extension grants, to be awarded competitively under section 
     3(d) of the Act, $479,000; payments for carrying out the 
     provisions of the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 
     (16 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.), $4,008,000; payments for the 
     federally recognized Tribes Extension Program under section 
     3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, $3,000,000; payments for 
     sustainable agriculture programs under section 3(d) of the 
     Act, $4,568,000; payments for cooperative extension work by 
     eligible institutions (7 U.S.C. 3221), $44,000,000, provided 
     that each institution receives no less than $1,000,000; for 
     grants to youth organizations pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 7630, 
     $1,800,000; payments to carry out the food animal residue 
     avoidance database program as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 7642, 
     $806,000; and for necessary expenses of Extension Activities, 
     $13,934,000.


                         integrated activities

       For the integrated research, education, and extension 
     grants programs, including necessary administrative expenses, 
     $60,022,000, as follows: for competitive grants programs 
     authorized under section 406 of the Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7626), 
     $45,148,000, including $12,649,000 for the water quality 
     program, $14,596,000 for the food safety program, $4,096,000 
     for the regional pest management centers program, $4,388,000 
     for the Food Quality Protection Act risk mitigation program 
     for major food crop systems, $1,365,000 for the crops 
     affected by Food Quality Protection Act implementation, 
     $3,054,000 for the methyl bromide transition program, and 
     $5,000,000 for the organic transition program; for a 
     competitive international science and education grants 
     program authorized under section 1459A of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3292b), to remain available until expended, 
     $3,000,000; for grants programs authorized under section 
     2(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 89-106, as amended, $732,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2011, for the critical 
     issues program; $1,312,000 for the regional rural development 
     centers program; and $9,830,000 for the Food and Agriculture 
     Defense Initiative authorized under section 1484 of the 
     National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977, to remain available until September 30, 
     2011.

  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, $753,000.

               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), $881,019,000, 
     of which $2,058,000 shall be available for the control of 
     outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal diseases and for 
     control of pest animals and birds to the extent necessary to 
     meet emergency conditions; of which $23,390,000 shall be used 
     for the cotton pests program for cost share purposes or for 
     debt retirement for active eradication zones; of which 
     $60,243,000 shall be used to prevent and control avian 
     influenza and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That funds provided for the contingency fund to 
     meet emergency conditions, information technology 
     infrastructure, fruit fly program, emerging plant pests, 
     cotton pests program, grasshopper and mormon cricket program, 
     the plum pox program, the National Veterinary Stockpile, up 
     to $1,500,000 in the scrapie program for indemnities, up to 
     $1,000,000 for wildlife services methods development, up to 
     $1,000,000 of the wildlife services operations program for 
     aviation safety, and up to 25 percent of the screwworm 
     program 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 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.
       In fiscal year 2010, 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 credited 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, $4,712,000, to remain available until expended.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           marketing services

       For necessary expenses of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Service, $90,848,000: 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.
       Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization 
     activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31 
     U.S.C. 9701).


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $64,583,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative 
     expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or 
     other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this 
     limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.


    funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
     1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), shall be used only for commodity 
     program expenses as authorized therein, and other related 
     operating expenses, including not less than $20,000,000 for 
     replacement of a system to support commodity purchases, 
     except for: (1) transfers to the Department of Commerce as 
     authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August 8, 1956; 
     (2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and (3) not 
     more than $20,056,000 for formulation and administration of 
     marketing agreements and orders pursuant to the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and the Agricultural Act of 
     1961.


                   payments to states and possessions

       For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and 
     departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing 
     activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,334,000.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and 
     Stockyards Administration, $41,964,000: 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

[[Page 17118]]

     altering any one building during the fiscal year shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value of the 
     building.


        limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses

       Not to exceed $42,463,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and 
     weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities 
     require additional supervision and oversight, or other 
     uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded 
     by up to 10 percent with notification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Food Safety, $622,000.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act, 
     including not to exceed $50,000 for representation allowances 
     and for expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved 
     August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $1,018,520,000; and in 
     addition, $1,000,000 may be credited to this account from 
     fees collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation as 
     authorized by section 1327 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 138f): Provided, 
     That no fewer than 120 full-time equivalent positions shall 
     be employed during fiscal year 2010 for purposes dedicated 
     solely to inspections and enforcement related to the Humane 
     Methods of Slaughter Act: Provided further, That of the 
     amount available under this heading, $3,000,000 shall be 
     obligated to maintain the Humane Animal Tracking System as 
     part of the Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure 
     System: Provided further, 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.

  Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 22, line 17, be considered as read.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, $662,000.

                          Farm Service Agency


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Farm Service Agency, 
     $1,253,777,000: Provided, That the Secretary is authorized to 
     use the services, facilities, and authorities (but not the 
     funds) of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make program 
     payments for all programs administered by the Agency: 
     Provided further, That other funds made available to the 
     Agency for authorized activities may be advanced to and 
     merged with this account.

                          ____________________