[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17118-17136]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]





      Part B Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. 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. 6 offered by Mr. Garrett of New 
     Jersey:
       Page 23, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 7, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add $5 
million to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Conservation 
Operations Account and subtract $5 million from the Farm Service Agency 
salaries.
  More than 80 percent of the funds under the NRCS Conservation 
Operations Account provide technical support to help farmers and other 
landowners conserve and protect their land and resources. Currently, 
there is a significant backlog of requests for conservation assistance, 
and many farmers are turned away by the USDA when they apply to 
participate in conservation programs due to insufficient funding.
  New Jersey, my home State, is one of the most densely populated 
States in the country, and more and more scarce land disappears every 
day. Our farmers are eager to share in the cost of protecting our 
environment, and we must ensure that they have the knowledge and the 
ability to do so in the appropriate manner.
  So I would like to commend the chairwoman and the ranking member for 
their work in attempting to address this important issue. And while I 
do support very strongly the Farm Service Agency, their salaries and 
their expense account, under this bill it is slated for a $92 million 
increase, and with so many of our Nation's farmers struggling to 
conserve their land and with development rapidly eating up our 
cherished resources, I believe this is a priority.
  I will close with this: More than 19 years ago, when I first ran for 
public office in my State, I believed we were not doing enough to 
preserve our open space and our farmlands. I believe that this 
amendment continues to move us now in the right way and towards that 
goal. I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, 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 increases the funding for the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service Account by $5 million by decreasing the 
Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses.
  While I am very supportive of the efforts of this amendment with 
regard to technical support and of easing the backlog, I must say that 
I do not think it is a good offset, but we did not write the language, 
and we will fix the offset in conference.
  With that, I urge the adoption of the amendment and ask for a ``yes'' 
vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that. I just have a question 
while we're on the floor, just for my edification. Are there other 
areas that you would suggest now where the offset should come from?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Well, what I would like to do is to see what the best 
opportunities are, but I have indicated my support for the amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I understand. This is just for my 
edification.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         state mediation grants

       For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural 
     Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106), 
     $4,000,000.


               grassroots source water protection program

        For necessary expenses to carry out wellhead or 
     groundwater protection activities under section 1240O of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-2), $5,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


                        dairy indemnity program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity 
     payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products 
     under a dairy indemnity program, such sums as may be 
     necessary, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     such program is carried out by the Secretary in the same 
     manner as the dairy indemnity program described in the 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 
     106-387, 114 Stat. 1549A-12).


           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed farm ownership (7 U.S.C. 1922 et seq.) and 
     operating (7 U.S.C. 1941 et seq.) loans, Indian tribe land

[[Page 17119]]

     acquisition loans (25 U.S.C. 488), boll weevil loans (7 
     U.S.C. 1989), direct and guaranteed conservation loans (7 
     U.S.C. 1924 et seq.), and Indian highly fractionated land 
     loans (25 U.S.C. 488), to be available from funds in the 
     Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund, as follows: farm 
     ownership loans, $1,892,990,000, of which $1,500,000,000 
     shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $392,990,000 
     shall be for direct loans; operating loans, $1,994,467,000, 
     of which $1,150,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed 
     loans, $144,467,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans 
     and $700,000,000 shall be for direct loans; Indian tribe land 
     acquisition loans, $3,940,000; conservation loans, 
     $150,000,000, of which $75,000,000 shall be for guaranteed 
     loans and $75,000,000 shall be for direct loans; Indian 
     highly fractionated land loans, $10,000,000; and for boll 
     weevil eradication program loans, $100,000,000: Provided, 
     That the Secretary shall deem the pink bollworm to be a boll 
     weevil for the purpose of boll weevil eradication program 
     loans.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership 
     loans, $21,584,000, of which $5,550,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans, and $16,034,000 shall be for 
     direct loans; operating loans, $80,402,000, of which 
     $26,910,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, 
     $20,312,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans, and 
     $33,180,000 shall be for direct loans; conservation loans, 
     $1,343,000, of which $278,000 shall be for guaranteed loans, 
     and $1,065,000 shall be for direct loans; and Indian highly 
     fractionated land loans, $793,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $326,093,000, of 
     which $318,173,000 shall be transferred to and merged with 
     the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.
       Funds appropriated by this Act to the Agricultural Credit 
     Insurance Program Account for farm ownership, operating and 
     conservation direct loans and guaranteed loans may be 
     transferred among these programs: Provided, That the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.

                         Risk Management Agency

       For necessary expenses of the Risk Management Agency, 
     $80,325,000: Provided, That the funds made available under 
     section 522(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1522(e)) may be used for the Common Information Management 
     System: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).

                              CORPORATIONS

       The following corporations and agencies are hereby 
     authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds 
     and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or 
     agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs set 
     forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for such 
     corporation or agency, except as hereinafter provided.

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

       For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516), such sums as may be 
     necessary, to remain available until expended.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

                 reimbursement for net realized losses


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary 
     to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net 
     realized losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed, 
     pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961 (15 
     U.S.C. 713a-11): Provided, That of the funds available to the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation under section 11 of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i) for 
     the conduct of its business with the Foreign Agricultural 
     Service, up to $5,000,000 may be transferred to and used by 
     the Foreign Agricultural Service for information resource 
     management activities of the Foreign Agricultural Service 
     that are not related to Commodity Credit Corporation 
     business.


                       hazardous waste management

                        (limitation on expenses)

       For the current fiscal year, the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for site 
     investigation and cleanup expenses, and operations and 
     maintenance expenses to comply with the requirement of 
     section 107(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9607(g)), and 
     section 6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6961).

                                TITLE II

                         CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Natural Resources and Environment, $774,000.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service


                        conservation operations

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of 
     the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), including 
     preparation of conservation plans and establishment of 
     measures to conserve soil and water (including farm 
     irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for 
     soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent 
     floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control 
     agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation 
     plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil; 
     dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water, 
     and interests therein for use in the plant materials program 
     by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to 
     exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 
     428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of 
     permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft, $869,397,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2011: Provided, That appropriations 
     hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for 
     construction and improvement of buildings and public 
     improvements at plant materials centers, except that the cost 
     of alterations and improvements to other buildings and other 
     public improvements shall not exceed $250,000: Provided 
     further, That when buildings or other structures are erected 
     on non-Federal land, that the right to use such land is 
     obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a.


               watershed and flood prevention operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures, 
     including but not limited to research, engineering 
     operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of 
     vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in 
     use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005 and 1007-1009), the 
     provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), 
     and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating to the 
     activities of the Department, $20,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $12,000,000 of this appropriation shall be available for 
     technical assistance.


                    watershed rehabilitation program

       For necessary expenses to carry out rehabilitation of 
     structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the 
     Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1012), and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating 
     to the activities of the Department, $40,161,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                 resource conservation and development

       For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out 
     projects for resource conservation and development and for 
     sound land use pursuant to the provisions of sections 31 and 
     32 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010-1011; 
     76 Stat. 607); the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f); 
     and subtitle H of title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 
     1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), $50,730,000: Provided, That not 
     to exceed $3,073,000 shall be available for national 
     headquarters activities.

                               TITLE III

                       RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Rural Development, $660,000.

                Rural Development Salaries and Expenses


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration 
     and implementation of programs in the Rural Development 
     mission area, including activities with institutions 
     concerning the development and operation of agricultural 
     cooperatives; and for cooperative agreements; $195,987,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated under this section may be used for 
     advertising and promotional activities that support the Rural 
     Development mission area: Provided further, That not more 
     than $10,000 may be expended to provide modest nonmonetary 
     awards to non-USDA employees: Provided further, That any 
     balances available from prior years for the Rural Utilities 
     Service, Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Business-
     Cooperative Service salaries and expenses accounts shall be 
     transferred to and merged with this appropriation.

                         Rural Housing Service


              rural housing insurance fund program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, to be available from funds in the rural housing 
     insurance fund, as follows: $7,325,932,000 for loans to 
     section 502 borrowers, of which $1,121,488,000 shall be for 
     direct loans, and of which $6,204,444,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans; $34,412,000 for section 504 
     housing repair loans; $80,000,000 for section 515 rental 
     housing; $129,090,000 for section 538 guaranteed multi-family 
     housing loans; $5,045,000 for section 524 site loans; 
     $11,448,000 for credit sales of

[[Page 17120]]

     acquired property, of which up to $1,448,000 may be for 
     multi-family credit sales; and $4,970,000 for section 523 
     self-help housing land development loans.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502 
     loans, $130,334,000, of which $40,710,000 shall be for direct 
     loans, and of which $89,624,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section 
     504 housing repair loans, $4,422,000; repair, rehabilitation, 
     and new construction of section 515 rental housing, 
     $21,792,000; section 538 multi-family housing guaranteed 
     loans, $1,485,000; and credit sales of acquired property, 
     $556,000: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated in 
     this paragraph, $2,500,000 shall be available through June 
     30, 2010, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities and communities designated by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones: 
     Provided further, That section 538 multi-family housing 
     guaranteed loans funded pursuant to this paragraph shall not 
     be subject to a guarantee fee and the interest on such loans 
     may not be subsidized: Provided further, That any balances 
     for a demonstration program for the preservation and 
     revitalization of the section 515 multi-family rental housing 
     properties as authorized by Public Law 109-97 and Public Law 
     110-5 shall be transferred to and merged with the ``Rural 
     Housing Service, Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program 
     Account''.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $468,593,000 
     shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses''.


                       rental assistance program

       For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or 
     agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or 
     payments for eligible households as authorized by section 
     502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, $980,000,000; and, 
     in addition, such sums as may be necessary, as authorized by 
     section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt incurred prior 
     to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental assistance 
     program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: Provided, That of 
     this amount, up to $5,958,000 shall be available for debt 
     forgiveness or payments for eligible households as authorized 
     by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to exceed $50,000 
     per project for advances to nonprofit organizations or public 
     agencies to cover direct costs (other than purchase price) 
     incurred in purchasing projects pursuant to section 
     502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That of this 
     amount not less than $2,030,000 is available for newly 
     constructed units financed by section 515 of the Housing Act 
     of 1949, and not less than $3,400,000 is for newly 
     constructed units financed under sections 514 and 516 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949: Provided further, That rental assistance 
     agreements entered into or renewed during the current fiscal 
     year shall be funded for a one-year period: Provided further, 
     That any unexpended balances remaining at the end of such 
     one-year agreements may be transferred and used for the 
     purposes of any debt reduction; maintenance, repair, or 
     rehabilitation of any existing projects; preservation; and 
     rental assistance activities authorized under title V of the 
     Act: Provided further, That rental assistance provided under 
     agreements entered into prior to fiscal year 2010 for a farm 
     labor multi-family housing project financed under section 514 
     or 516 of the Act may not be recaptured for use in another 
     project until such assistance has remained unused for a 
     period of 12 consecutive months, if such project has a 
     waiting list of tenants seeking such assistance or the 
     project has rental assistance eligible tenants who are not 
     receiving such assistance: Provided further, That such 
     recaptured rental assistance shall, to the extent 
     practicable, be applied to another farm labor multi-family 
     housing project financed under section 514 or 516 of the Act.


          multi-family housing revitalization program account

       For the rural housing voucher program as authorized under 
     section 542 of the Housing Act of 1949, but notwithstanding 
     subsection (b) of such section, for the cost to conduct a 
     housing demonstration program to provide revolving loans for 
     the preservation of low-income multi-family housing projects, 
     and for additional costs to conduct a demonstration program 
     for the preservation and revitalization of multi-family 
     rental housing properties described in this paragraph, 
     $31,756,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the funds made available under this heading, 
     $4,965,000 shall be available for rural housing vouchers to 
     any low-income household (including those not receiving 
     rental assistance) residing in a property financed with a 
     section 515 loan which has been prepaid after September 30, 
     2005: Provided further, That the amount of such voucher shall 
     be the difference between comparable market rent for the 
     section 515 unit and the tenant paid rent for such unit: 
     Provided further, That funds made available for such vouchers 
     shall be subject to the availability of annual 
     appropriations: Provided further, That the Secretary shall, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, administer such vouchers 
     with current regulations and administrative guidance 
     applicable to section 8 housing vouchers administered by the 
     Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development: 
     Provided further, That if the Secretary determines that the 
     amount made available for vouchers in this or any other Act 
     is not needed for vouchers, the Secretary may use such funds 
     for the demonstration programs for the preservation and 
     revitalization of multi-family rental housing properties 
     described in this paragraph: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available under this heading, $1,791,000 shall be 
     available for the cost of loans to private nonprofit 
     organizations, or such nonprofit organizations' affiliate 
     loan funds and State and local housing finance agencies, to 
     carry out a housing demonstration program to provide 
     revolving loans for the preservation of low-income multi-
     family housing projects: Provided further, That loans under 
     such demonstration program shall have an interest rate of not 
     more than 1 percent direct loan to the recipient: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary may defer the interest and 
     principal payment to the Rural Housing Service for up to 3 
     years and the term of such loans shall not exceed 30 years: 
     Provided further, That of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $25,000,000 shall be available for a demonstration 
     program for the preservation and revitalization of the 
     section 514, 515, and 516 multi-family rental housing 
     properties to restructure existing USDA multi-family housing 
     loans, as the Secretary deems appropriate, expressly for the 
     purposes of ensuring the project has sufficient resources to 
     preserve the project for the purpose of providing safe and 
     affordable housing for low-income residents and farm laborers 
     including reducing or eliminating interest; deferring loan 
     payments, subordinating, reducing or reamortizing loan debt; 
     and other financial assistance including advances, payments 
     and incentives (including the ability of owners to obtain 
     reasonable returns on investment) required by the Secretary: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall as part of the 
     preservation and revitalization agreement obtain a 
     restrictive use agreement consistent with the terms of the 
     restructuring: Provided further, That if the Secretary 
     determines that additional funds for vouchers described in 
     this paragraph are needed, funds for the preservation and 
     revitalization demonstration program may be used for such 
     vouchers: Provided further, That if Congress enacts 
     legislation to permanently authorize a section 515 multi-
     family rental housing loan restructuring program similar to 
     the demonstration program described herein, the Secretary may 
     use funds made available for the demonstration program under 
     this heading to carry out such legislation with the prior 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress.


                  mutual and self-help housing grants

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $45,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be available through 
     June 30, 2010, for authorized empowerment zones and 
     enterprise communities and communities designated by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership 
     Zones.


                    rural housing assistance grants

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For grants and contracts for very low-income housing 
     repair, supervisory and technical assistance, compensation 
     for construction defects, and rural housing preservation made 
     by the Rural Housing Service, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
     1474, 1479(c), 1490e, and 1490m, $45,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $4,000,000 shall be for 
     grants authorized by section 14204 of the Food, Conservation, 
     and Energy Act of 2008: Provided, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, $1,200,000 shall be available through June 30, 
     2010, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities and communities designated by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones: 
     Provided further, That any balances to carry out a housing 
     demonstration program to provide revolving loans for the 
     preservation of low-income multi-family housing projects as 
     authorized in Public Law 108-447 and Public Law 109-97 shall 
     be transferred to and merged with the ``Rural Housing 
     Service, Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program 
     Account''.


                       farm labor program account

       For the cost of direct loans, grants, and contracts, as 
     authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486, $22,523,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for direct farm labor housing loans 
     and domestic farm labor housing grants and contracts.

               Rural Community Facilities Program Account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants 
     for rural community facilities programs as authorized by 
     section 306 and described in section 381E(d)(1) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, $51,091,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That $6,256,000 of 
     the amount appropriated under this heading

[[Page 17121]]

     shall be available for a Rural Community Development 
     Initiative: Provided further, That such funds shall be used 
     solely to develop the capacity and ability of private, 
     nonprofit community-based housing and community development 
     organizations, low-income rural communities, and Federally 
     Recognized Native American Tribes to undertake projects to 
     improve housing, community facilities, community and economic 
     development projects in rural areas: Provided further, That 
     such funds shall be made available to qualified private, 
     nonprofit and public intermediary organizations proposing to 
     carry out a program of financial and technical assistance: 
     Provided further, That such intermediary organizations shall 
     provide matching funds from other sources, including Federal 
     funds for related activities, in an amount not less than 
     funds provided: Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the 
     amount appropriated under this heading shall be to provide 
     grants for facilities in rural communities with extreme 
     unemployment and severe economic depression (Public Law 106-
     387), with up to 5 percent for administration and capacity 
     building in the State rural development offices: Provided 
     further, That $3,972,000 of the amount appropriated under 
     this heading shall be available for community facilities 
     grants to tribal colleges, as authorized by section 
     306(a)(19) of such Act: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 of the amount appropriated under this heading 
     shall be available through June 30, 2010, for authorized 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities and communities 
     designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic 
     Area Partnership Zones for the rural community programs 
     described in section 381E(d)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act: Provided further, That sections 381E-H 
     and 381N of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
     are not applicable to the funds made available under this 
     heading: Provided further, That any prior balances in the 
     Rural Development, Rural Community Advancement Program 
     account for programs authorized by section 306 and described 
     in section 381E(d)(1) of such Act be transferred and merged 
     with this account and any other prior balances from the Rural 
     Development, Rural Community Advancement Program account that 
     the Secretary determines is appropriate to transfer.

                  Rural Business--Cooperative Service


                     rural business program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of loan guarantees and grants, for the rural 
     business development programs authorized by sections 306 and 
     310B and described in sections 310B(f) and 381E(d)(3) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, $97,116,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $500,000 shall 
     be made available for a grant to a qualified national 
     organization to provide technical assistance for rural 
     transportation in order to promote economic development and 
     $2,979,000 shall be for grants to the Delta Regional 
     Authority (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) for any Rural Community 
     Advancement Program purpose as described in section 381E(d) 
     of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, of which 
     not more than 5 percent may be used for administrative 
     expenses: Provided further, That $4,000,000 of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading shall be for business grants 
     to benefit Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, 
     including $250,000 for a grant to a qualified national 
     organization to provide technical assistance for rural 
     transportation in order to promote economic development: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $8,300,000 of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available through 
     June 30, 2010, for authorized empowerment zones and 
     enterprise communities and communities designated by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership 
     Zones for the rural business and cooperative development 
     programs described in section 381E(d)(3) of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act: Provided further, That 
     sections 381E-H and 381N of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act are not applicable to funds made available 
     under this heading: Provided further, That any prior balances 
     in the Rural Development, Rural Community Advancement Program 
     account for programs authorized by sections 306 and 310B and 
     described in sections 310B(f) and 381E(d)(3) of such Act be 
     transferred and merged with this account and any other prior 
     balances from the Rural Development, Rural Community 
     Advancement Program account that the Secretary determines is 
     appropriate to transfer.


              rural development loan fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), 
     $33,536,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, $8,464,000, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), of which 
     $1,035,000 shall be available through June 30, 2010, for 
     Federally Recognized Native American Tribes and of which 
     $2,070,000 shall be available through June 30, 2010, for 
     Mississippi Delta Region counties (as determined in 
     accordance with Public Law 100-460): Provided, That such 
     costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be 
     as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, $880,000 shall be available through June 30, 
     2010, for the cost of direct loans for authorized empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities and communities designated 
     by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area 
     Partnership Zones.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan programs, $4,941,000 shall be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Development, 
     Salaries and Expenses''.

            Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account


                    (including rescission of funds)

       For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized 
     under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the 
     purpose of promoting rural economic development and job 
     creation projects, $33,077,000.
       Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit 
     payments, as authorized by section 313 of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, $43,000,000 shall not be 
     obligated and $43,000,000 are rescinded.


                  rural cooperative development grants

       For rural cooperative development grants authorized under 
     section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932), $30,636,000, of which 
     $300,000 shall be for a cooperative research agreement with a 
     qualified academic institution to conduct research on the 
     national economic impact of all types of cooperatives; and of 
     which $2,582,000 shall be for cooperative agreements for the 
     appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $3,463,000 shall be for 
     cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary 
     focus is to provide assistance to small, socially 
     disadvantaged producers and whose governing board and/or 
     membership is comprised of at least 75 percent socially 
     disadvantaged members; and of which $18,867,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be for value-added 
     agricultural product market development grants, as authorized 
     by section 231 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 
     2000 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note).


                    rural energy for america program

       For the cost of a program of loan guarantees and grants, 
     under the same terms and conditions as authorized by section 
     9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 
     U.S.C. 8107), $20,000,000: Provided, That the cost of loan 
     guarantees, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974.

                        Rural Utilities Service


             rural water and waste disposal program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants 
     for the rural water, waste water, waste disposal, and solid 
     waste management programs authorized by sections 306, 306A, 
     306C, 306D, and 310B and described in sections 306C(a)(2), 
     306D, and 381E(d)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act, $546,230,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which not to exceed $497,000 shall be available 
     for the rural utilities program described in section 
     306(a)(2)(B) of such Act, and of which not to exceed $993,000 
     shall be available for the rural utilities program described 
     in section 306E of such Act: Provided, That $41,085,000 of 
     the amount appropriated under this heading shall be for loans 
     and grants including water and waste disposal systems grants 
     authorized by 306C(a)(2)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act and for Federally recognized Native 
     American Tribes authorized by 306C(a)(1): Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $19,500,000 of the amount appropriated 
     under this heading shall be for technical assistance grants 
     for rural water and waste systems pursuant to section 
     306(a)(14) of such Act, unless the Secretary makes a 
     determination of extreme need, of which $6,000,000 shall be 
     made available for a grant to a qualified nonprofit multi-
     state regional technical assistance organization, with 
     experience in working with small communities on water and 
     waste water problems, the principal purpose of such grant 
     shall be to assist rural communities with populations of 
     3,300 or less, in improving the planning, financing, 
     development, operation, and management of water and waste 
     water systems, and of which not less than $800,000 shall be 
     for a qualified national Native American organization to 
     provide technical assistance for rural water systems for 
     tribal communities: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $15,000,000 of the amount appropriated under this heading 
     shall be for contracting with qualified national 
     organizations for a circuit rider program to provide 
     technical assistance for rural water systems: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $12,700,000 of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available through 
     June 30, 2010, for authorized empowerment zones and 
     enterprise communities and communities designated by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture as

[[Page 17122]]

     Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones for the rural utilities 
     programs described in section 381E(d)(2) of such Act: 
     Provided further, That sections 381E-H and 381N of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act are not 
     applicable to the funds made available under this heading: 
     Provided further, That any prior balances in the Rural 
     Development, Rural Community Advancement Program account 
     programs authorized by sections 306, 306A, 306C, 306D, and 
     310B and described in sections 306C(a)(2), 306D, and 
     381E(d)(2) of such Act be transferred to and merged with this 
     account and any other prior balances from the Rural 
     Development, Rural Community Advancement Program account that 
     the Secretary determines is appropriate to transfer.


   rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       The principal amount of direct and guaranteed loans as 
     authorized by section 305 of the Rural Electrification Act of 
     1936 (7 U.S.C. 935) shall be made as follows: 5 percent rural 
     electrification loans, $100,000,000; loans made pursuant to 
     section 306 of that Act, rural electric, $6,500,000,000; 5 
     percent rural telecommunications loans, $145,000,000; cost of 
     money rural telecommunications loans, $250,000,000; and for 
     loans made pursuant to section 306 of that Act, rural 
     telecommunications loans, $295,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $39,959,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.


         distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program

       For the principal amount of broadband telecommunication 
     loans, $400,000,000.
       For grants for telemedicine and distance learning services 
     in rural areas, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., 
     $34,755,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary may use funds under this heading for 
     grants authorized by 379(g) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act.
       For the cost of broadband loans, as authorized by section 
     601 of the Rural Electrification Act, $28,960,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the cost of direct 
     loans shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, $17,976,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for a grant program to finance broadband 
     transmission in rural areas eligible for Distance Learning 
     and Telemedicine Program benefits authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     950aaa.

                                TITLE IV

                         DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, $623,000.

                       Food and Nutrition Service


                        child nutrition programs

                     (including transfers of funds)

       In lieu of the amounts made available in section 14222(b) 
     of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, for 
     necessary expenses to carry out the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except 
     section 21, and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1771 et seq.), except sections 17 and 21; $16,799,584,000, to 
     remain available through September 30, 2011, of which 
     $10,051,707,000 is hereby appropriated and $6,747,877,000 
     shall be derived by transfer from funds available under 
     section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): 
     Provided, That of the total amount available, $5,000,000 
     shall be available to be awarded as competitive grants to 
     implement section 4405 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
     Act of 2008 (Public Law No. 110-246).


special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children 
                                 (wic)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special 
     supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), 
     $7,541,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     2011: Provided, That, notwithstanding section 17(h)(10)(A) of 
     such Act, only the provisions of section 17(h)(10)(B)(i), 
     section 17(h)(10)(B)(ii), and section 17(h)(10)(B)(iii) shall 
     be effective in 2010: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds provided in this account shall be available for the 
     purchase of infant formula except in accordance with the cost 
     containment and competitive bidding requirements specified in 
     section 17 of such Act: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds provided shall be available for activities that are not 
     fully reimbursed by other Federal Government departments or 
     agencies unless authorized by section 17 of such Act.


               supplemental nutrition assistance program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $61,351,846,000, of 
     which $3,000,000,000, to remain available through September 
     30, 2011, shall be placed in reserve for use only in such 
     amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry 
     out program operations: Provided, That funds provided herein 
     shall be expended in accordance with section 16 of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be subject to any work registration or 
     workfare requirements as may be required by law: Provided 
     further, That funds made available for Employment and 
     Training under this heading shall remain available until 
     expended, as authorized by section 16(h)(1) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008: Provided further, That funds made 
     available under this heading may be used to enter into 
     contracts and employ staff to conduct studies, evaluations, 
     or to conduct activities related to program integrity 
     provided that such activities are authorized by the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008.


                      commodity assistance program

       For necessary expenses to carry out disaster assistance and 
     the Commodity Supplemental Food Program as authorized by 
     section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act 
     of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); the Emergency Food Assistance 
     Act of 1983; special assistance for the nuclear affected 
     islands, as authorized by section 103(f)(2) of the Compact of 
     Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-188); 
     and the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, as authorized by 
     section 17(m) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, 
     $255,570,000, to remain available through September 30, 2011, 
     of which $5,000,000 shall be for emergency food program 
     infrastructure grants authorized by section 209 of the 
     Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983: Provided, That of the 
     amount provided, $5,000,000 is to begin service in six 
     additional states that have plans approved by the Department 
     for the commodity supplemental food program: Provided 
     further, That none of these funds shall be available to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities 
     donated to the program: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective with 
     funds made available in fiscal year 2010 to support the 
     Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, as authorized by 
     section 4402 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002, such funds shall remain available through September 30, 
     2011: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     under section 27(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2036(a)), the Secretary may use up to 10 percent for 
     costs associated with the distribution of commodities.


                   nutrition programs administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Food and 
     Nutrition Service for carrying out any domestic nutrition 
     assistance program, $147,801,000.

                                TITLE V

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     including not to exceed $158,000 for representation 
     allowances and for expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act 
     approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $177,136,000: 
     Provided, That the Service may utilize advances of funds, or 
     reimburse this appropriation for expenditures made on behalf 
     of Federal agencies, public and private organizations and 
     institutions under agreements executed pursuant to the 
     agricultural food production assistance programs (7 U.S.C. 
     1737) and the foreign assistance programs of the United 
     States Agency for International Development: Provided 
     further, That funds made available for the cost of agreements 
     under title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954 and for title I ocean freight 
     differential may be used interchangeably between the two 
     accounts with prior notice to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.


  Public Law 480 Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program 
                                Account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the credit program 
     of title I, Public Law 83-480 and the Food for Progress Act 
     of 1985, $2,812,000, to be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.


                     Public Law 480 Title II Grants

       For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Food for Peace Act (Public Law 
     83-480, as amended), for commodities supplied in connection 
     with dispositions abroad under title II of said Act, 
     $1,690,000,000, to remain available until expended.


       commodity credit corporation export loans program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and 
     GSM 103, $6,820,000; to cover common overhead expenses as 
     permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990, of which $6,465,000 shall be

[[Page 17123]]

     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries and Expenses'', and 
     of which $355,000 shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.


  Mcgovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
                             Program Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 3107 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1), $199,500,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation is authorized to provide the services, 
     facilities, and authorities for the purpose of implementing 
     such section, subject to reimbursement from amounts provided 
     herein.

  Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 56, line 14, 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:

                                TITLE VI

            RELATED AGENCY AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration, 
     including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public 
     Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and Drug 
     Administration which are included in this Act; for rental of 
     special purpose space in the District of Columbia or 
     elsewhere; for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's 
     certificate, not to exceed $25,000; and notwithstanding 
     section 521 of Public Law 107-188; $2,995,218,000: Provided, 
     That of the amount provided under this heading, $578,162,000 
     shall be derived from prescription drug user fees authorized 
     by 21 U.S.C. 379h shall be credited to this account and 
     remain available until expended, and shall not include any 
     fees pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 379h(a)(2) and (a)(3) assessed for 
     fiscal year 2011 but collected in fiscal year 2010; 
     $57,014,000 shall be derived from medical device user fees 
     authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to this 
     account and remain available until expended; $17,280,000 
     shall be derived from animal drug user fees authorized by 21 
     U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to this account and remain 
     available until expended; and $5,106,000 shall be derived 
     from animal generic drug user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 
     379f, and shall be credited to this account and shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That fees derived 
     from prescription drug, medical device, animal drug, and 
     animal generic drug assessments for fiscal year 2010 received 
     during fiscal year 2010, including any such fees assessed 
     prior to fiscal year 2010 but credited for fiscal year 2010, 
     shall be subject to the fiscal year 2010 limitations: 
     Provided further, That none of these funds shall be used to 
     develop, establish, or operate any program of user fees 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701: Provided further, That of the 
     total amount appropriated: (1) $782,915,000 shall be for the 
     Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related 
     field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2) 
     $873,104,000 shall be for the Center for Drug Evaluation and 
     Research and related field activities in the Office of 
     Regulatory Affairs; (3) $305,249,000 shall be for the Center 
     for Biologics Evaluation and Research and for related field 
     activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4) 
     $155,540,000 shall be for the Center for Veterinary Medicine 
     and for related field activities in the Office of Regulatory 
     Affairs; (5) $349,262,000 shall be for the Center for Devices 
     and Radiological Health and for related field activities in 
     the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (6) $58,745,000 shall be 
     for the National Center for Toxicological Research; (7) not 
     to exceed $115,882,000 shall be for Rent and Related 
     activities, of which $41,496,000 is for White Oak 
     Consolidation, other than the amounts paid to the General 
     Services Administration for rent; (8) not to exceed 
     $168,728,000 shall be for payments to the General Services 
     Administration for rent; and (9) $185,793,000 shall be for 
     other activities, including the Office of the Commissioner; 
     the Office of Scientific and Medical Programs; the Office of 
     Policy, Planning and Preparedness; the Office of 
     International and Special Programs; the Office of Operations; 
     and central services for these offices: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds made available under this heading 
     shall be used to transfer funds under section 770(n) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379dd): 
     Provided further, That funds may be transferred from one 
     specified activity to another with the prior approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.


         part b amendment no. 3 offered by mr. broun of georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. 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. 3 offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia:
       Page 57, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $373,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf 
of my amendment to the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations 
bill.
  This amendment would simply maintain funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration at the same level as last year. It would save taxpayers 
$373 million. As American families struggle to tighten their fiscal 
belts and spend less, I believe Congress should stop spending so much.
  Tragically, many of my colleagues were not allowed the opportunity to 
bring their amendments up for debate today. Because Democratic leaders 
have changed the traditional process, American families have missed 
over 70 opportunities to reduce wasteful programs and to fix what's 
broken here in Washington, the outrageous spending that we're doing.
  You would think in these difficult times that Congress would be 
willing to restore the people's faith in the way that we spend their 
money. I think most people would like for us to be more frugal. For my 
part, I also tried to offer an amendment to reduce the bill's funding 
level by half of a percent, 0.5 percent, a reduction of just half a 
penny out of every dollar spent, but that amendment was not allowed to 
be offered on the floor today, as well as were many others that I 
offered.
  Other amendments I offered would have saved hundreds of millions of 
taxpayer dollars by eliminating double dipping, maintaining other 
programs at the 2009 levels, and preventing the purchase of new Federal 
lands, but these amendments were not allowed either.
  Mr. Chairman, as the House conducts one of its most important tasks, 
the appropriation of funds, we owe it to the American families and 
people to have an open debate, to allow all ideas to be heard, and to 
work towards real fiscal constraint here in Washington. We can do that 
in a bipartisan manner, but we're not allowed to do so by the 
leadership. In fact, the Democrats should be as outraged as I am that 
their voice is not heard either. Debate is being stifled, and it's not 
right. It's not fair not only to us, but it's not fair to the American 
people.
  We have to stop this outrageous spending that we're doing. I urge my 
colleagues to support my modest and simple amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I strongly oppose this amendment.
  This amendment would take away the entire increase over 2009 that is 
provided in this bill for the Food and Drug Administration. That 
increase will allow the agency to increase staffing, including staffing 
devoted to inspections and other field activities, make real 
improvements in FDA's work to ensure the safety of foods and medical 
products. For example, in the foods area, FDA will be able to conduct 
1,150 more foreign and domestic food inspections and do 20,000 more 
examinations of imported food products. In the medical products area, 
FDA will conduct 3,300 more examinations of imported drug products and 
4,400 more examinations of imported medical device products.
  The FDA will also be able to update its labs with new equipment, will 
allow

[[Page 17124]]

it to do a faster analysis of examples. This is especially important 
during food-borne illness outbreaks. And we have watched what's 
happened in food-borne illness outbreaks not only in terms of the 
public health, but we have left industry out there to be exposed and to 
be able to lose their share, whether it is leafy greens, whether it's 
tomatoes, whatever it is, if we cannot allow these laboratories to 
function and to find out what's going on.
  The investments reap benefits in the next several years. New 
inspectors hired with funds in this bill are fully trained, bringing 
significantly more domestic and foreign inspections and import field 
exams and other activities by increases in the bill.
  We can do research on Salmonella and E. coli biomarkers, new methods 
of rapid detection of decontamination, improved ability to collect and 
analyze data on food-borne illnesses. And if you can't understand, when 
you listen to a mother who says my child of 2 years old died from E. 
coli contamination--
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Would the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I am happy to have you speak again. You reserved time.
  You know, we have just seen an E. coli outbreak in cookie dough. It 
highlights the importance of what these additional funds can help us to 
do. The E. coli bacteria lives inside animals, and that's why E. coli 
outbreaks are often associated with meat products. How, then, does E. 
coli get into cookie dough? Additional research on E. coli can help 
determine how it happened and results could prevent future outbreaks.
  In addition to the work on food safety, the increased funds will help 
the FDA work on new screening tests for blood-borne disease to better 
understand the adverse events related to medical devices that are used 
in pediatric hospitals.
  Another important tool that the additional funds will provide is to 
allow the FDA to make substantial investments in information technology 
for both foods and medical products. This allows the agency to receive 
and to better analyze adverse events electronically, support electronic 
submission of applications, and access old data for safety analyses.

                              {time}  2100

  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, maybe the gentlewoman doesn't 
know that I'm a physician. I'm concerned about people's health. And my 
amendment won't do a thing to cut all those programs that you're 
accusing me of trying to cut. And I resent the fact that you're 
accusing me of trying to cut that because I'm not trying to hurt 
people. I'm not trying to harm folks. I'm not trying to stop research. 
And my amendment wouldn't do that.
  My amendment would simply put the funding at the current level. We 
are stealing our grandchildren's future by spending so much money, by 
creating a huge debt. I'm not picking on the FDA. What I'm trying to do 
is I'm trying to save my grandchildren's future. And what we have right 
now with this bill is a 14 percent increase in funding over last year. 
That's outrageous. And I resent the fact that you're saying that I'm 
going to cut all these programs, because my amendment will not.
  And, frankly, I just don't understand this kind of emotional debate 
because it's not debate and it's not correct. The thing that I want to 
do is I want to save my grandchildren's future by stopping this 
outrageous, egregious spending that we're doing here. We don't have the 
money.
  Let's keep all these programs. I would love to see us have continuing 
resolutions for all these appropriations bills across the board, freeze 
the spending for at least a year.
  The people in my district are suffering. Most counties have a 13 to 
14 percent unemployment rate. And what we are doing is we are 
increasing the budget for this bill, for this appropriations bill, by 
14 percent. That's outrageous.
  And I tell you, the American people should be outraged. They should 
be calling every single congressional office and saying ``no'' to these 
spending bills that are just basically stealing our children and 
grandchildren's future.
  We have got to stop this spending. It's absolutely ridiculous. It's 
going to bankrupt this country, if we're not already bankrupt. And I'm 
just trying to save spending the taxpayers' dollars. It's absolutely 
critical that we do that.
  The budget that was presented by our President increases the debt 
over the next 5 years more than every single President since George 
Washington. I hear your side keep talking about the debt President Bush 
created. I wasn't here during that time. I voted against all the bills 
that we have had since I've been up here, and I think George Bush was 
wrong in creating that much debt. But your President and my President 
is creating more debt than George Bush and every other President in 
history.
  We need to stop this spending.
  Ms. DeLAURO. First of all, it's an 11 percent increase, not 14 
percent. I'm trying to save your grandchildren's lives and other 
grandchildren's lives and my own as well.
  We have watched over the last several months and the last couple of 
years, and the ranking member of this committee understands this and 
knows this, and we inspect 1 percent of the food that comes into this 
country from overseas, 1 percent. And the cry has been that there have 
not been enough inspectors to be able to do that. We are unable to 
trace back what happened with regard to lettuce, to tomatoes, and 
others, all of which are putting our families at risk. Your cut, in 
fact, would put this agency back in jeopardy where it has been for the 
last several years.
  I resent the fact that you as a physician do not understand the value 
of what the Food and Drug Administration does and that it is 
responsible for lives. These are not roads. These are not bridges or 
parks. This is an agency that has authority over people's lives and the 
public health.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Members are advised to direct their comments to the Chair.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. 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 Georgia will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
     263b, export certification user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 
     381, and priority review user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 
     360n may be credited to this account, to remain available 
     until expended.


                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of 
     or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not 
     otherwise provided, $12,433,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                  commodity futures trading commission

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the 
     purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, and the rental 
     of space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere, $160,600,000, including not to exceed 
     $3,000 for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided, That $14,600,000 of the total amount appropriated 
     under this heading shall not be available for obligation 
     until the Commodity Futures Trading Commission submits an 
     expenditure plan for fiscal year 2010 to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     and the Committees approve the whole of the plan.

                       Farm Credit Administration


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $54,500,000 (from assessments collected from 
     farm credit institutions, including the Federal Agricultural 
     Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the

[[Page 17125]]

     current fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized 
     under 12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall 
     not apply to expenses associated with receiverships.

                               TITLE VII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS


             (including rescissions and transfers of funds)

       Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law, 
     appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of 
     Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall 
     be available for the purchase, in addition to those 
     specifically provided for, of not to exceed 204 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 170 shall be for replacement only, 
     and for the hire of such vehicles.
       Sec. 702. New obligational authority provided for the 
     following appropriation items in this Act shall remain 
     available until expended: Food Safety and Inspection Service, 
     Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure System; Farm 
     Service Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to 
     county committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-
     income country training program, and up to $2,000,000 of the 
     Foreign Agricultural Service appropriation solely for the 
     purpose of offsetting fluctuations in international currency 
     exchange rates, subject to documentation by the Foreign 
     Agricultural Service.
       Sec. 703. The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer 
     unobligated balances of discretionary funds appropriated by 
     this Act or other available unobligated discretionary 
     balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working 
     Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital 
     equipment necessary for the delivery of financial, 
     administrative, and information technology services of 
     primary benefit to the agencies of the Department of 
     Agriculture: Provided, That none of the funds made available 
     by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred to the 
     Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the agency 
     administrator: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund pursuant to this 
     section shall be available for obligation without the prior 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act or made available to the 
     Department's Working Capital Fund shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure to make any changes to the 
     Department's National Finance Center without prior approval 
     of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress as required by section 712 of this Act.
       Sec. 704. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 705. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements 
     or similar arrangements between the United States Department 
     of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 
     percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the 
     purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out 
     programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This 
     does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on 
     grants and contracts with such institutions when such 
     indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all 
     agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
       Sec. 706. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture 
     for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in 
     the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended 
     to disburse obligations made in the current fiscal year for 
     the following accounts: the Rural Development Loan Fund 
     program account, the Rural Electrification and 
     Telecommunication Loans program account, and the Rural 
     Housing Insurance Fund program account.
       Sec. 707. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more 
     than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of 
     activities related to all advisory committees, panels, 
     commissions, and task forces of the Department of 
     Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated 
     rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively 
     awarded grants.
       Sec. 708. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471).
       Sec. 709. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may 
     be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by 
     this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for 
     more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or 
     office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office 
     for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
     assignment.
       Sec. 710. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Agriculture or the Food and 
     Drug Administration shall be used to transmit or otherwise 
     make available to any non-Department of Agriculture or non-
     Department of Health and Human Services employee questions or 
     responses to questions that are a result of information 
     requested for the appropriations hearing process.
       Sec. 711. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire 
     new information technology systems or significant upgrades, 
     as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer, 
     without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the 
     concurrence of the Executive Information Technology 
     Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to 
     the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     available to the Department of Agriculture for information 
     technology shall be obligated for projects over $25,000 prior 
     to receipt of written approval by the Chief Information 
     Officer.
       Sec. 712. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or 
     provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through 
     a reprogramming of funds which--
       (1) creates new programs;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any 
     project or activity for which funds have been denied or 
     restricted;
       (4) relocates an office or employees;
       (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or
       (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities 
     presently performed by Federal employees; unless the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by 
     previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this 
     Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in 
     the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for activities, 
     programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: 
     (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a 
     change in existing programs, activities, or projects as 
     approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations 
     of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of 
     such reprogramming of funds.
       (c) The Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress before implementing 
     a program or activity not carried out during the previous 
     fiscal year unless the program or activity is funded by this 
     Act or specifically funded by any other Act.
       Sec. 713. None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
     personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as 
     part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of 
     the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the 
     Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from 
     the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not 
     been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget 
     unless such Budget submission identifies which additional 
     spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees 
     proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening 
     of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2011 
     appropriations Act.
       Sec. 714. None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to close or relocate a Rural 
     Development office unless or until the Secretary of 
     Agriculture determines the cost effectiveness and/or 
     enhancement of program delivery: Provided, That not later 
     than 120 days before the date of the proposed closure or 
     relocation, the Secretary notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriation of the House and Senate, and the members of 
     Congress from the State in which the office is located of the 
     proposed closure or relocation and provides a report that 
     describes the justifications for such closures and 
     relocations.
       Sec. 715. None of the funds made available to the Food and 
     Drug Administration by this Act shall be used to close or 
     relocate, or to plan to close or relocate, the Food and Drug 
     Administration Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis in St. 
     Louis, Missouri, outside the city or county limits of St. 
     Louis, Missouri.
       Sec. 716. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out an 
     environmental quality incentives program authorized by 
     chapter 4 of subtitle D of title

[[Page 17126]]

     XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et 
     seq.) in excess of $1,180,000,000.
       Sec. 717. None of the funds made available in fiscal year 
     2009 or preceding fiscal years for programs authorized under 
     the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) in excess of 
     $20,000,000 shall be used to reimburse the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for the release of eligible commodities under 
     section 302(f)(2)(A) of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1): Provided, That any such funds made 
     available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation shall 
     only be used pursuant to section 302(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Bill 
     Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act.
       Sec. 718. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and 
     expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or 
     administer the program authorized by section 14(h)(1) of the 
     Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1012(h)(1)).
       Sec. 719. Funds made available under section 1240I and 
     section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 and section 
     524(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1524(b)) 
     in the current fiscal year shall remain available until 
     expended to disburse obligations made in the current fiscal 
     year.
       Sec. 720. Unless otherwise authorized by existing law, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act, may be used by an 
     executive branch agency to produce any prepackaged news story 
     intended for broadcast or distribution in the United States 
     unless the story includes a clear notification within the 
     text or audio of the prepackaged news story that the 
     prepackaged news story was prepared or funded by that 
     executive branch agency.
       Sec. 721. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     former RUS borrower that has repaid or prepaid an insured, 
     direct or guaranteed loan under the Rural Electrification 
     Act, or any not-for-profit utility that is eligible to 
     receive an insured or direct loan under such Act, shall be 
     eligible for assistance under section 313(b)(2)(B) of such 
     Act in the same manner as a borrower under such Act.
       Sec. 722. Of the unobligated balances under section 32 of 
     the Act of August 24, 1935, $52,000,000 are hereby rescinded.
       Sec. 723. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to establish or implement a rule allowing poultry 
     products to be imported into the United States from the 
     People's Republic of China.
       Sec. 724. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Agriculture in this Act may be used to 
     implement the risk-based inspection program in the 30 
     prototype locations announced on February 22, 2007, by the 
     Under Secretary for Food Safety, or at any other locations, 
     until the USDA Office of Inspector General has provided its 
     findings to the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate on the data used in support of the development 
     and design of the risk-based inspection program and FSIS has 
     addressed and resolved issues identified by OIG.
       Sec. 725. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     until receipt of the decennial Census in the year 2010, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall consider--
       (1) the city of Lumberton, North Carolina, and the city of 
     Sanford, North Carolina (including individuals and entities 
     with projects within the city), eligible for loans and grants 
     funded through the Rural Community Facilities Program 
     account;
       (2) the unincorporated area of Los Osos, California 
     (including individuals and entities with projects within the 
     cities), eligible for loans and grants funded through the 
     Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account; and
       (3) the city of Nogales, Arizona (including individuals and 
     entities with projects within the city), eligible for loans 
     and grants funded under the housing programs of the Rural 
     Housing Service.
       Sec. 726. There is hereby appropriated $2,500,000 for 
     section 4404 of Public Law 107-171.
       Sec. 727. There is hereby appropriated:
       (1) $1,408,000 shall be for a grant to the Wisconsin 
     Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, as 
     authorized by section 6402 of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note);
       (2) $1,000,000 shall be for development of a prototype for 
     a national carbon inventory and accounting system for 
     forestry and agriculture, to be awarded under full and open 
     competition;
       (3) $1,000,000 for the International Food Protection 
     Training Institute; and
       (4) $200,000 for the Center for Foodborne Illness Research 
     and Prevention.
       Sec. 728. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service shall provide 
     financial and technical assistance through the Watershed and 
     Flood Prevention Operations program to carry out--
       (1) the Alameda Creek Watershed Project in Alameda County, 
     California;
       (2) the Hurricane Katrina-Related Watershed Restoration 
     project in Jackson County, Mississippi;
       (3) the Pidcock-Mill Creeks Watershed project in Bucks 
     County, Pennsylvania;
       (4) the Farmington River Restoration project in Litchfield 
     County, Connecticut;
       (5) the Lake Oscawana Management and Restoration project in 
     Putnam County, New York; and
       (6) the Richland Creek Reservoir in Paulding County, 
     Georgia.
       Sec. 729. Section 17(r)(5) of the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(r)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the District of Columbia and'' after the 
     first instance of ``institutions located in'';
       (2) by striking ``ten'' and inserting ``eleven'';
       (3) by striking ``eight'' and inserting ``nine''; and
       (4) by inserting ``Connecticut,'' after the first instance 
     of ``States shall be''.
       Sec. 730. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purposes of a grant under section 412 of the Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, none 
     of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to prohibit 
     the provision of in-kind support from non-Federal sources 
     under section 412(e)(3) in the form of unrecovered indirect 
     costs not otherwise charged against the grant, consistent 
     with the indirect rate of cost approved for a recipient.
       Sec. 731. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to--
       (1) inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal Meat 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603);
       (2) inspect horses under section 903 of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1901 
     note; Public Law 104-127); or
       (3) implement or enforce section 352.19 of title 9, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 732. The Secretary of Agriculture may authorize a 
     State agency to use funds provided in this Act to exceed the 
     maximum amount of reconstituted liquid concentrate infant 
     formula specified in 7 CFR 246.10 when issuing liquid 
     concentrate infant formula to participants.

  Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 74, line 15 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:

       Sec. 733. Of the unobligated balances provided pursuant to 
     section 16(h)(1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 
     $11,000,000 is hereby rescinded.
       Sec. 734. Of the prior year unobligated balances provided 
     for the purpose of section 306D of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act, $25,008,000 is hereby rescinded.


            Part B Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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. 1 offered by Mrs. Blackburn:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 5 percent.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, tonight I rise in support of the 
American taxpayer.
  Like a lot of my colleagues, I was home last week. I spent a lot of 
my time talking with constituents and listening to them and to their 
concerns. And it seems like wherever I went and whomever I spoke with, 
one concern overrode all of the others. They talked to us a lot about 
how astounded they were with cap-and-trade and they talked about their 
fears of what the liberal proposals were going to do to health care.
  But the one thing that overrode them all, the commonality of concern, 
was with spending, the deficit, and national debt. Many times they used 
the term ``I am dumbfounded'' by what we are spending. Where is this 
money coming from? Is it coming from China? Is it coming from India? 
Are we just continuing to roll up the debt? And over and over they 
said, Tell me what we can do to stop this excessive spending.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a good first step, and it is a 
way that we can begin to slow the Federal spending.

[[Page 17127]]

  The approps bill before us represents nearly a 12 percent spending 
increase over last year. And if you add all the stimulus spending, 
which was $26.5 billion, and the emergency spending, which was $7.9 
billion, these programs have benefited from about a 125 percent 
increase over the past 3 years. So can any of us say that spending 125 
percent more than we did on these programs last year in this economic 
climate is responsible? Look at what that growth has been over a 3-year 
period of time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am asking my colleagues to agree with me to give back 
just one nickel out of every dollar that is being appropriated and 
given to the bureaucracy, one nickel out of every single dollar.
  As my colleagues all know, I am probably the proudest grandmother 
here on Capitol Hill. I have two adorable grandsons. My oldest grandson 
is barely a year old, and he and his brother, his 3-week-old brother, 
are each already in debt to the tune of about $70,000 to the Federal 
Government.
  I know that there are thousands of grandparents that are out there 
just like me. They are incredibly concerned about what they see 
happening. They fear that the exploding debt and the deficit will 
compromise and will cap the opportunity of those precious children and 
that we will trade their bright future for one that is limited by a 
national debt that makes this Nation so sluggish that the best and the 
brightest opportunities are going to end up going elsewhere. And where 
are we getting the money? We are getting the money from our 
grandchildren.
  So I urge support of my amendment. Cut 5 percent across the board. 
Cut a nickel from every dollar. And require today's bureaucracy to find 
a way to do what the American taxpayer is doing, to tighten the belt 
and save that nickel out of a dollar for our future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment, which would cut all the agencies and the 
programs in the bill by 5 percent. I understand. I have three beautiful 
grandchildren, and they are the light of my life. And for that reason, 
I'm opposed to this amendment.
  This would represent a cut of $1.1 billion from the bill. Now, this 
is exactly the wrong time to cut funding for critical programs under 
the bill that protect the public health, bolster food nutrition 
assistance programs, invests in rural communities, in agriculture 
research, strengthen animal health and marketing programs, and conserve 
our natural resources.
  While the bill received a relatively large increase over 2009, it is 
important to understand that the large majority goes to fund just three 
priorities: $681 million for higher WIC participation and for food 
costs, $560 million for International Food Aid programs, and $299 
million for the Food and Drug Administration to better protect our 
public health. At the same time, the bill made cuts in a number of 
programs below 2009 totaling $274 million. We also rejected $735 
million in increases in the budget request.
  So rather than using targeted, precision cuts, as we have done with 
this bill, an across-the-board cut would hurt core programs, would 
increase the investment deficits our communities across the country 
have had to overcome in the past years regardless of the value of the 
program.
  These increases are needed to support vital services and priorities, 
vital and effective programs which, quite frankly, have broad 
bipartisan support. The increases in these areas are needed to ensure 
adequate funding to support the food nutrition safety net for families 
that serve an estimated 10.1 million women and children in 2010, 
strengthen even more of America's commitment to meet humanitarian food 
aid needs, to enhance the FDA's capabilities to ensure the safety of 
our food and medical products.
  The bill also uses a portion of the increase to make up for cuts to 
farm bill conservation programs. We did not accept the cuts to priority 
farm bill conservation programs that the 2010 budget proposed. That 
budget made significant cuts to wetlands research programs, farmland 
protection, wildlife habitat programs, all effective programs with 
backlogs of applications from farmers and from ranchers. All told, the 
committee bill provides hundreds of millions in funding above the 2010 
budget for farm bill conservation programs. Thus the bill uses a 
significant portion of the increase to make up for the cuts.
  In conclusion, I want to note that the increases in this bill are not 
based on the belief that we should just throw money at the challenges 
that we face. The increases are about meeting the Federal Government's 
obligations. Again, I think we need to take a look at core programs, 
whether it's USDA or FDA. The gentlewoman's amendment would force all 
of these agencies that cover rural development, food and drug safety, 
WIC, food stamps to seek drastic cuts in a time of acute need. I think 
this amendment is fiscally irresponsible. It will further harm our 
rural communities and our public health, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman mentioned fiscal 
irresponsibility. I think that growing programs by 12 percent when they 
have already seen enormous, enormous increases is irresponsible.
  We are asking to curtail the growth 5 percent. Curtail that growth 5 
percent. You know, the States have been a great lab of experimentation 
in this. And many States, including mine of Tennessee, have had across-
the-board cuts, and they have used that to rein in the bureaucracy and 
say tighten your belts. Times are tough. Tighten your belts. And, Mr. 
Chairman, that is what we should do.
  Priorities. She talked about priorities. How about the priority of 
the American taxpayer? How about the priority of the American farmer 
who writes that check to Uncle Sam every year and turns to his child 
and says, Guess what, you're not going to go to the university; you're 
going to go get another job and work another year before you can go.

                              {time}  2115

  These are priorities that are set aside while they meet our 
obligation to us. It is our responsibility to be good stewards of that 
dollar. And giving egregious raises--listen to this. McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program grants, an 
increase of 99.5 percent; FDA salaries and expenses--and, trust me, 
Energy and Commerce, we've been after them for a long time--14.6 
percent.
  The list goes on and on.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. How much time is available?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would just like to say that this bill addresses the 
plight of the American farmers, rural America. And I don't come from 
rural America. I come from the Northeast. But I have farms.
  I'm watching dairy farmers go out of business. That's happening all 
over the country. And watching the technical assistance programs with 
backlogs that are not addressing the needs of the American farmer.
  This bill addresses those issues.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentlelady will yield.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I just have 1\1/2\ minutes left--and less than that now.
  This bill is looking at how we can in fact meet the obligations that 
we have in a time of fiscal and economic crisis and economic insecurity 
all over this country. Under the jurisdiction of this bill is rural 
development. In addition to that, it protects the public health, which 
we're obligated to do. And when you see nine people die from peanut-
based products because we cannot trace back, we cannot analyze, we do 
not have--
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentlelady will yield, we have done plenty--

[[Page 17128]]


  Ms. DeLAURO. We do not have the tools that are necessary in order to 
be able to understand what happened. This bill addresses--
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Money doesn't solve that problem.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman will suspend. The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut controls the time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Across-the-board cuts apply a meat ax and don't have a 
precision cut and make a difference. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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 Tennessee will be 
postponed.


            Part E Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
amendment No. 6.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part E amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--
     Salaries and Expenses'' shall be available for the National 
     Biodiversity Conservation Strategy project, Kiski Basin, 
     Pennsylvania, and the amount otherwise provided under such 
     heading is hereby reduced by $200,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. This is an amendment that would strike an earmark, 
better known as pork barrel spending. Specifically, $200,000 requested 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for the Natural 
Biodiversity of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, for conservation strategy at 
the Kiski Basin.
  If one goes to the Web site of Natural Biodiversity, they will learn 
that ``they control invasive, nonnative plants.''
  ``Holistic habitat management techniques are being used to restore 
riparian buffers on sites throughout the Kiski-Conemaugh and upper 
Juniata drainages.'' I hope I pronounced those properly.
  Mr. Chairman, permit me to put this amendment into a broader context. 
Clearly, the national priority has got to be job growth, economic 
growth. And, by any standard, the economic policies of this Democratic 
Congress, the economic policies of this administration have been an 
abject failure: 2.6 million jobs lost since February--467,000 jobs lost 
last month alone; 9.5 percent unemployment throughout the land--the 
highest unemployment in a quarter of a century.
  Mr. Chairman, what do we have to show for it? Nothing but debt. 
Mountains and mountains of debt in spending for our children and 
grandchildren, already. $9,810 per household to fund a $1.13 trillion 
government stimulus plan; $3,534 per household to fund a $410 billion 
omnibus; $31,000 per household to fund a $3.6 trillion 2010 budget.
  Tripling, tripling the Federal debt in 10 years. More debt in the 
next 10 years than in the previous 220; billions for Chrysler; billions 
for GM; billions for AIG. Borrowing 46 cents on the dollar, borrowing 
it from the Chinese, sending the bill to our children and 
grandchildren. That's the context, Mr. Chairman.
  So I ask one and only one thing. Here's an opportunity. Here's an 
opportunity for the taxpayers to maybe save $300,000. Not to borrow 
that money from the Chinese.
  Now I have no idea--I have no doubt, I have no doubt that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania is sincere. I'm sure good things can be 
done with this money by the Natural Biodiversity and their holistic 
habitat management program. I have no doubt that good things could be 
done with that money.
  But let me tell you other good things that can be done with the 
money. That money could be used to go against the deficit so we don't 
borrow money from the Chinese, so we don't send the bill to our 
children and grandchildren. And if we're going to spend it, Mr. 
Chairman, maybe we ought to spend it on small businesses--small 
businesses that are capitalized with $25,000, on average, according to 
the SBA. We could save eight small businesses in America.
  But, most importantly right now, we could tell America that we know 
what the priorities are--and it's not weed management by Natural 
Biodiversity in the Kiski River Basin. I have no idea how this became a 
national priority.
  I'm sure, again, that important things can be done with the money, 
but is it worth borrowing the money from the Chinese and sending the 
bill to our children and our grandchildren? I think not.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Though the gentleman who sponsored this project could 
not be here tonight, he has provided me with the following information.
  This is a conservation project for a not-for-profit volunteer 
program. Natural Biodiversity was initiated in response to citizens' 
concerns for invasive plant problems in the 1,887 square mile Kiski-
Conemaugh drainage portion of the Allegheny River and Ohio River Basin.
  Subsequent work has been expanded the geographic area to include the 
Juniata watershed of the Chesapeake Bay, the State of Pennsylvania, and 
a much larger mid-Atlantic region.
  Invasive plant management work has led to innovative approaches, 
including native plant restoration and comprehensive land stewardship 
practices. Some of their early achievements have been the early 
detection and rapid response to noxious weeds and 32 invasive plant 
locations; education and outreach to 10,000 people, with a potential 
audience of 500,000 each year; development of a management plan for the 
1,000-square-mile Raystown branch of the Juniata River.
  So, again, it is a not-for-profit volunteer program that is dealing 
with a concern and a large area about invasive plant problems. And I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, it was an interesting discussion, Mr. Chairman. 
I'm not sure it's worthy of borrowing $200,000 dollars from the Chinese 
and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren.
  I'm sorry that the gentleman from Pennsylvania couldn't make it here 
tonight. I know he is busy with many, many earmarks. According to the 
April 19 edition of the Washington Post, Murtha, dubbed the King of 
Pork by critics, consistently directs more Federal money to his 
district than any other Congressman--$192 million in the 2008 budget.
  I don't know what the unemployment rate is in Johnstown, 
Pennsylvania, but around the rest of the Nation it's averaging 9.5 
percent. And if he would choose not to spend $200,000 dollars for weed-
whacking along this river basin, maybe we could have more jobs in the 
rest of America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to make one comment, and 
that's about fiscal responsibility. I am delighted that the gentleman 
has gotten religion on fiscal responsibility. As I recall, he spent the 
last 8 years here witnessing the kinds of tax cuts that have provided 
the tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this Nation and now has 
brought this Nation to this fiscal crisis that we have and the 
indebtedness that we have. I think he must have been missing in action 
for these 8 years where we experienced this.
  This indebtedness did not occur overnight. I once again urge my 
colleagues to vote in opposition to this amendment.

[[Page 17129]]


  Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I just wanted to say on behalf of the minority members 
I had planned to oppose this amendment and do believe that this 
research can be very helpful and know that many of the earmarks that 
have been in this bill have increased food safety and increased food 
supply and created jobs along the way and reduced food costs.
  And so there are a lot of things that do kind of catch the eye that 
sometimes there is more to it than you can get out in a quick debate on 
it. But I do plan to oppose this, and wanted the chairwoman to know 
that.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. Fifteen seconds.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I think it's very interesting to get a 
lecture from the gentlelady on fiscal responsibility, since she just 
voted for a budget that will triple the national debt over the next 10 
years. When the deficit was $300 billion and falling, the majority 
leader Steny Hoyer called it fiscal child abuse. Here's an earmark to 
add $200,000 to fiscal child abuse.
  We ought to cut it out. And I urge adoption of my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. 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.


             Part C Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Campbell

  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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 C amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Campbell:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``National Institute of Food and Agriculture--
     Research and Education Activities'' shall be available for 
     the special grant for Specialty Crops in Indiana, and the 
     aggregate amount otherwise provided under such heading (and 
     the portion of such amount specified for special grants) are 
     each hereby reduced by $235,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate a $235,000 
earmark for Specialty Crops in Indiana, and reduces funding in the 
overall bill by that amount. According to the statement from the 
sponsor of the earmark, the gentleman from Indiana, this earmark of the 
Specialty Crops Research Extension and Training Center at the 
Southwest-Purdue Agricultural Center would go to increase their staff 
and upgrade equipment for the center.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm sure--and I expect we will hear from the gentleman 
from Indiana--and I'm sure that he will talk about what he believes the 
benefits of this program or this center or the additional equipment 
that this earmark would buy is going to be to that center.
  But, Mr. Chairman, as has been mentioned by the previous several 
speakers, and I'm sure will be mentioned by others, we are in a period 
of great fiscal strain, where we have a $2 trillion deficit running 
this year, another $1 trillion deficit every year for as far as the eye 
can see, and 46 cents of every dollar we spend on the floor of this 
House, 46 of every dollar this year will be borrowed.

                              {time}  2130

  Even the Congressional Budget Office just 2 weeks ago said that the 
current budget and the current budget trajectory is ``unsustainable.'' 
Mr. Chairman, given the situation that we're in, given the deficits 
we're running, given the debt we're building up, given the amount of 
money that we're borrowing, given the spending that we're going 
through, shouldn't we be limiting what we're spending now to true 
national priorities, true things that are really those things that we 
must do and can only do right now rather than things that are designed 
for a specific district, specific area or a specific industry? Mr. 
Chairman, I would suggest that this particular earmark is one of those 
things and does not rise to that level of national and critical 
importance that we should borrow another $108,000 from, as was said 
before, the Chinese, the Indians, whomever in order to fund this 
particular earmark.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the distinguished 
chairwoman of the subcommittee for yielding.
  I would like to thank her and her colleagues on the Agriculture 
appropriations subcommittee for not only approving this this year but 
also last year, and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I got home from Afghanistan 2 days ago; and while I was 
there in the Khost province, I was fortunate enough to visit with the 
Indiana National Guard. And besides their soldiering duties, some of 
other things they were doing was helping the Afghanistan agriculture 
farmers to better their practices of farming in Afghanistan. I would 
guess that if I asked the 14,000 farmers in Indiana in my district and 
if Mr. Campbell asked the 132 farmers in his district, according to the 
2007 agriculture census, and I have 9,000 farms in my district and Mr. 
Campbell has 72 farms in his district, according to the same document, 
that if we asked those farmers in our two respective districts, Should 
we spend money in Afghanistan on their agriculture or spend it right 
here in the United States, I'm just going to take a guess that they 
might say, let's spend some of it here. And that's what this amendment 
would try to preclude.
  I'd like to take this opportunity, as Mr. Campbell said, to defend 
this program because it was fully funded last year, and I'd ask that it 
would be funded this year again. This is the Specialty Crops Research, 
Extension, and Training Center at the Southwest-Purdue Agricultural 
Center. This project is a collaboration between Purdue University and 
Vincennes University. It is housed in Vincennes, Indiana. This farmland 
in Knox County, Indiana, is particularly well suited for growing fresh 
fruits and vegetables, and the Southwest-Purdue Agricultural Center 
provides an important resource for farmers to improve crop quality and 
yields and decrease pesticide use.
  The request I submitted to the Appropriations Committee would direct 
funds, as Mr. Campbell said, to the center for upgrades to their 
equipment and in personnel. Mr. Chair, they do a lot of great things 
there. This is critical for conducting research on crops in our area. I 
also will remind you that where I live in midwest Indiana is within a 
day's drive of 40 percent of the American population. Indiana is proud. 
We are proud of our farmers, and we're proud to supply food to the 
Midwest and across our country. And because approximately 40 percent of 
the Nation's population live within a day's drive of that area, we 
think it's extremely important to explore all of the possibilities of 
that area. And no one does it better than this extension and this 
agriculture center.
  We all know the value of adding fresh fruits and vegetables to our 
diets, and Americans are struggling right now with obesity and related 
health issues. Proper diet and nutrition habits are critical components 
to making this country healthier. New expanded fruit and vegetable 
production is extremely critical. I think it's important to note that 
this is not new funding. This is in the USDA's appropriated funds. So

[[Page 17130]]

who's better to say where this money might be spent, the Congressman 
who drives the streets and the roads and the highways and on the farms 
and talks to the farmers and the ranchers in southern Indiana or a 
bureaucrat sitting in a booth somewhere in Washington, D.C., that says, 
``These people get this and these people get that''? I think it's the 
Congressman and the farmers from Indiana.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Indiana's eloquent defense of this, and I understand his point. 
But there are roughly 400 earmarks in this bill; and at some point, Mr. 
Chairman, we've got to stop. And one of the things the gentleman 
mentioned was that we're helping farmers in Afghanistan farm and should 
we do this or do that? But the fact is, we're doing both. And the fact 
is that many times in this Chamber we decide to spend money on 
everything. Let's spend money on this farm here and this farm here, and 
this crop here and this crop there, and this State here and this State 
there, and this country here and this country there. And it's that kind 
of spending where we aren't making the choices to spend on some things 
and not on others, where we aren't making the decision to spend within 
our means, where we aren't deciding that, we're not going to borrow the 
money, we're not going to tax them more money. We're going to take what 
we have, and we're going to allocate that as efficiently as we can to 
the places we think are the most important and not just do it to 
everything has got stop, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest to my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, I understand that perhaps you think this 
is important, but what's more important is $2 trillion in additional 
debt this year, $13 trillion in debt overall, 46 cents on every dollar 
being borrowed, and most of it being borrowed from foreign nations and 
that it doesn't ever stop. According to the President's budget, it goes 
on and on and on. We have got to stop that.
  I would just suggest that maybe we start with things like this. It 
isn't about whether the bureaucracy spends this or not. This bill would 
save that $235,000 and not borrow any more money. Whether it's here or 
somewhere else, at some point, Mr. Chairman, we have to begin to 
control the spending and not borrow and deficit spend so much. I just 
hope if we can't start tonight, let's start tomorrow.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. How much time do I have?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. My colleague Mr. Ellsworth talked about this project and 
has defended it more than adequately. But considering the openness and 
the scrutiny that has gone into the process this year, I would urge my 
colleagues to defeat this amendment and continue the good efforts of 
the proposal that Mr. Ellsworth has made and the whole issue of 
specialty crops. I share that interest in specialty crops coming from 
the State of Connecticut where, in fact, that is what we do; and the 
importance of the research in that area is critical. Support his 
effort, and oppose the gentleman from California's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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 California will be 
postponed.


              Part D Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Flake

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

       Part D amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``Agricultural Research Service--Salaries and 
     Expenses'' shall be available for the Foundry Sand By-
     Products Utilization project in Beltsville, Maryland, and the 
     aggregate amount otherwise provided under such heading is 
     hereby reduced by $638,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that it's a custom to address the Chair. I see 
the Speaker of the House is in the Chamber. If I could address her 
directly, what I would implore her to do is to--when we have the 
defense bill on the floor later this month, please make an open rule. 
Allow us the opportunity to challenge earmarks in the defense bill and 
then not limit us to just one or two or three. That defense bill will 
include literally hundreds and hundreds of earmarks that are no-bid 
contracts to private companies. And unless we have the ability to 
challenge them, they will go virtually unvetted because we know from 
sad experience they have not been vetted by the Appropriations 
Committee in the past.
  I will just draw your attention to a headline in today's Roll Call, 
``Justice Department this week filed criminal charges against a defense 
contractor who has received millions of dollars worth of earmarks.'' 
There will be another headline tomorrow and likely again the following 
day. We have investigations swirling outside. We have to be able to 
challenge these earmarks and to point out why it's wrong for this body 
to allow Members to earmark to their campaign contributors.
  So while the Speaker is in the Chamber, I would just implore her--if 
I could speak to her directly--to allow an open rule, allow more debate 
on this subject.
  But to the merits of the challenge to this earmark, this amendment 
would remove $638,000 in funding for the Beltsville, Maryland, 
Agricultural Research Center and reduce the overall cost of the bill by 
a commensurate amount.
  According to the report accompanying this bill, this earmark is 
described as the, quote, Foundry Sand By-Products Utilization in 
Beltsville, Maryland.'' But if you look at the table that is in the 
report for this bill, it says that that research project that is going 
to the Foundry Sand By-Product Utilization is actually completed. So 
it's a bit confusing as to what this earmark is actually for. There is 
a little different language in the certification letter and in the 
table that accompanies this bill. So I would ask the sponsor of this 
earmark to explain why we're earmarking funds seemingly for a project 
that has already been completed.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Although the gentleman could not be here tonight, he has 
provided me with the following information:
  This amendment seeks to eliminate funding for a research project at 
the Environmental Management and Byproduct Utilization Laboratory at 
the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. This amendment would 
deprive taxpayers of the expertise acquired by Federal researchers and 
scientists. I just want to reiterate here. These are Federal employees 
at a federally owned research center. The effort is to study the 
potential reuses of one industrial byproduct--sand used in metal 
casting. The experts have enabled us through research currently being 
reviewed by their peers to discover ways to deal with the over 7 
million tons of foundry sands that are estimated to be disposed of in 
our landfills annually. I think we need to continue to use their 
expertise.
  There is considerable need for ongoing funding to study the 
beneficial uses of other industrial byproducts in agriculture. This 
includes discovering ways

[[Page 17131]]

to prevent phosphorous from reaching our waterways, to improve soil 
characteristics and in sequestering carbon. The research also helps us 
to find ways to create new products from direct agricultural waste 
materials. Scientists, for example, as I understand this, have found a 
way to take carotene from chicken feathers, an example of a poultry 
byproduct to make high-quality biodegradable plastics for the 
horticultural industry. Finding these new uses not only would benefit 
American agricultural producers, it assists the American public and the 
environment by avoiding increasingly expensive options of sending these 
materials to a landfill. We need to allow these funds to be flexible as 
opposed to being directed at one specific material. For example, 
foundry sands. Since we cannot always be aware in advance of potential 
new beneficial uses of various industrially and agriculturally derived 
materials. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. The gentlelady mentioned that these are Federal employees 
in a Federal institution and a Federal facility that would be receiving 
these earmarks and has great trust that they will do the right thing in 
executing this earmark. I just find that curious that the main reason 
that we have earmarks, supposedly--we continually are told--is because 
we're not going to let these faceless bureaucrats at Federal agencies 
decide where to spend our money. Yet we're saying that they can't make 
those decisions but they can carry out the earmark. I can tell you why 
it's done and why you will have both the minority and the majority in 
this House today on the Appropriations Committee oppose this amendment. 
It's because if you look in the ag amendments this year, 64 percent of 
the money, of the share of earmarks, 67 percent of the dollar value are 
going to either appropriators or powerful Members, either chairmen or 
ranking minority members of committees.

                              {time}  2145

  This is fairly consistent across all the appropriations bills we will 
do this year. It is a spoils system. That may be a pejorative way to 
say it, but I don't know how else to say it when 64 percent of the 
earmarks in this legislation will go to about 24 percent of the Members 
in this body. We continually say, like I said, that these faceless 
bureaucrats shouldn't be deciding where our money goes. If you are a 
rank-and-file Member in this House, I would take my chances with a 
faceless bureaucrat because you would probably fare better than you 
would before the Appropriations Committee. And this is how it is year 
after year after year.
  Gratefully, we know it now because we have enough transparency where 
we know who is requesting the earmark. But this isn't right, and there 
are other worthy projects that might deserve this funding, but because 
a powerful Member is able to request it, then it goes there. And this 
is, I think, the fourth time that money has been appropriated for this 
project, which, according to the Web site of the requesting Member, the 
project has been completed. So I'm not sure exactly where the money is 
going if the project has been already completed. I guess it is starting 
again.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. The funding, just to address that, enables those who 
have worked on the project to continue their successes. Look, I do not 
pretend to be a scientist, and I would not pretend to tell the 
scientists how to pursue their research. Quite frankly, coming from the 
subcommittee in which I serve on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education, where we do provide funding for the National Institutes of 
Health, we do not--again, I'm not a scientist. We do not tell them how, 
where, and what to focus the resources on or a particular illness.
  As is often the case, research will uncover other discoveries. Look, 
I will give you a very good example. There is research that has been 
done with Taxol, which is at the NIH, which was presumed to be 
effective in helping women who were suffering fourth-stage ovarian 
cancer, which is a time when it is almost irreversible. But as 
researchers began to develop research on Taxol, they began to find that 
its properties were also useful for breast cancer and other types of 
cancers. So what research does is it opens up a whole variety of 
avenues, and that is where discoveries are made.
  I think we should leave these kinds of efforts to the scientists. 
This project is producing, and it will continue to produce with the aid 
of this funding, peer-reviewed research. My colleague and I believe 
this will be of great benefit.
  Once again, as I say, we have been very open. There has been a great 
deal of scrutiny that has gone into this process this year. There have 
been new requirements that Chairman Obey put into practice to continue 
our efforts to ensure that the appropriations process is open, that it 
is transparent, and that it is worthy of the public's trust. In terms 
of vetting each request with the agency under whose jurisdiction the 
earmark would fall, there has been public disclosure on Members' Web 
sites, and the committee made earmark lists available after the 
subcommittee consideration on the bill on June 11, nearly 4 weeks ago. 
And as indicated in our report, the funding earmarks in the Agriculture 
appropriations bill in 2008, 2009, were well below 2006.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The gentleman 
from Arizona has 30 seconds.
  Mr. FLAKE. I agree with the gentlelady when she says there is more 
transparency in the system now. That is true. That is a good thing. But 
we haven't drained the swamp. We simply know how deep the mud we are 
now in is. That is the problem. And the problem is when we trust the 
Federal agencies to carry out an earmark like this but we don't trust 
them to direct it.
  We should set parameters. We should tell the Federal agencies, Here 
is how you should distribute the money, instead of saying, All right, 
I'm a powerful member of the Appropriations Committee or of leadership 
and I'm going to direct that money to my district.
  I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be postponed.


              Part D Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flake

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

       Part D amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``National Institute of Food and Agriculture--
     Research and Education Activities'' shall be available for 
     the special grant for the Agriculture Energy Innovation 
     Center in Georgia, and the aggregate amount otherwise 
     provided under such heading (and the portion of such amount 
     specified for special grants) are each hereby reduced by 
     $1,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove $1 million from 
the University of Georgia's Agricultural Energy Innovation Center, 
located in Tifton, Georgia, and reduce the overall cost of the 
legislation by a commensurate amount. According to the sponsor's Web 
site, this funding

[[Page 17132]]

would be used to advance farm efficiencies by coupling advanced 
information communication and control technologies with improved plant 
materials, byproducts use and energy capture and conversion techniques.
  That sounds pretty impressive. I'm sure a lot of that is going on. 
The sponsor states this earmark is a good use of taxpayer dollars 
because the research and the demonstration project will facilitate the 
rapid advancement of new tools to increase the net production of energy 
from agriculture.
  There is a lot of this going on around the country. We have 
appropriated a lot of money in a lot of bills to do this kind of thing, 
and it just strikes me as folly to, in a bill like this, just to be 
able to direct money for a Member to say, All right, the university in 
my district is going to get this research money. They won't have to 
compete for it on merit. They won't have to compete for it because I'm 
going to earmark it, and they are going to get it when maybe a 
university elsewhere, the University of Nebraska, the University of 
Minnesota or University of Arizona, might want to compete for that 
project but they can't because the money is earmarked and it goes 
specifically to this university.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment to 
the floor. As one who is very involved in this earmark, I now have the 
opportunity to discuss it in detail. This is a program that works on 
future food production and technology by decreasing the cost of 
production and looking at ways to have some fuel independence. But what 
I wanted to emphasize to the gentleman, as he doesn't seem to have a 
problem with the merit of the project as much as the process of 
directing it to the University of Georgia, and I want to point out that 
the University of Georgia is a land grant university with one of the 
oldest agricultural colleges in the country. And they do compete for 
competitive grants on a regular basis, and they do get competitive 
grants. When they have put skin in the game, Congress has, in fact, not 
just for the University of Georgia, but for a lot of universities, put 
some matching money in it.
  Now, in this case, the money is really not matching as the college 
itself has already put in about $5 million. And they have been working 
on this over the years, but they have gotten $500,000 from private 
foundations in 2010 and 2011. They will get $800,000 from private 
foundations. And then they have State money, and then they have 
university money in it. So it is not something where the $1 million is 
a new start-up for a program that is not out there. It is something 
that they have been going after.
  Here is something from the State of Georgia, the Agriculture Energy 
Innovation Center, which we call GEFA. It is a letter in support of it, 
and of course, we do have something from the university itself 
supporting that the goal is in line with what colleges of agriculture 
and land grant universities do. But that is why the money went to the 
University of Georgia, and the Tifton campus is where they do much of 
their agricultural research.
  I would invite the gentleman to come down and visit sometime and let 
me explain why the good people of Arizona should fund something like 
that in the State of Georgia, because often it is, well, why should 
everybody in the country support something that is going to a 
particular State? But when the end product is something that will help 
the whole Nation, that is what happens.
  It is precision agriculture. One of the problems we have right now 
down on the farm is that you've got a lot of groups who are saying, All 
right, you're causing too much pollution. You're overfertilizing. 
You're using too much energy.
  So, what we have here is a land grant university addressing those 
very issues which will not be proprietary in their results. It will be 
something that is shared throughout the Nation for other farmers to 
say, Now, look, here is how you can do it using high technology, using 
precision agriculture, saving lots of money and utilize those 
techniques all over the country.
  With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. According to the Georgia Department of Economic 
Development, Georgia currently has over $2 billion worth of active 
renewable energy-related products and is a leader in the bioenergy 
revolution. I have no doubt that that is true. And because that is true 
and because if this Agriculture Energy Innovation Center truly has 
merit, then they should be able to compete for these grants with other 
land grant colleges, with other universities, and with other 
organizations that are doing this same research.
  My question is why, if you have such a deserving, respectable program 
like this, why do we need to earmark these dollars at all? Surely they 
can compete for it and do well. But why do we circumvent the process of 
competition simply because we are on the committee or we are a powerful 
chairman or a ranking minority member or somebody who can get this 
funding and earmark it so that nobody else can compete for it? That 
simply doesn't make sense.
  If we don't like the way that the agencies are disbursing this money, 
then, by golly, we ought to address it. That is our job as Members of 
Congress. We have the power of the purse. But, instead, to say we don't 
like how that faceless bureaucrat is going to direct the spending so we 
are going to create a parallel process in Congress where we can just 
circumvent the process and earmark that money for our own university, 
that is simply not right, and it has gotten out of hand in this 
Congress.
  Some people will point out that this year earmarks are down in this 
bill. That is a great thing, but they are not down far enough. We need 
a process that is competitive, that is based on merit and not based on 
the spoils system.
  Again, I repeat, in this bill, 24 percent of the Members of this body 
will control more than two-thirds of the money that is directed through 
earmarks. Now, that is not because there is more merit in those 
programs. It is because we have powerful Members in those positions. 
And you can't make the argument that, oh, this is a land grant college 
or this is a deserving institution. If they were, they could compete 
for those dollars. But instead, we are circumventing that process of 
competition and awarding by earmark through the political process. 
Particularly when we have the kind of deficit that we have today, this 
legislation would strike this funding and reduce the cost of the bill 
by a commensurate amount.
  How can any fiscal conservative say that we don't want to do that in 
this year when we are running a deficit that could reach $2 trillion? I 
would say it is time. And if we can't do it here, where will we do it?
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 90 seconds remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Very quickly, I just want to tell the gentleman from 
Georgia that I will join him in urging a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentlewoman.
  And I want to say to my friend, number one, I am working on a number 
of amendments that we have offered in the subcommittee and in the full 
committee. Some were accepted, some were not. I have one that we will 
be discussing in a few minutes, a $400 million reduction in the 
spending in this. And I have to say, it kills me to say this just 
about, but I have to hand it to the Democrats. In 2006, this bill had 
$865 million worth of earmarks. Today's bill has $219 million. And I 
know the gentleman will say that is still too many,

[[Page 17133]]

but one of the things that is real important is that there has been a 
reduction in earmarks.
  In 2008, this bill had 623 earmarks, now it has 321. And it is still 
too much, but one of the things we still hear often is the proverbial 
Defense Department's $500 hammer. Well, that is because there are so 
many problems in defense procurement. But it is the same in all 
branches of government. So I don't think that Congress should just 
blindly turn everything over to bureaucracies who are going to come up 
with competitive grant programs. I do think it is proper for Congress 
to have a role in congressionally directed spending. But I want to 
emphasize that of a $5 million project, the University of Georgia has 
come up with $4 million, so they have put their skin in the game.
  With that, I will yield the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I am glad to hear the gentleman is introducing an 
amendment later that will save $400 million. I will gladly vote for the 
gentleman's amendment. I hope we will vote for mine.
  We need to not only save $400 million; we need to save another 
million here. Why not, if it will reduce the cost of the bill by a 
commensurate amount, why wouldn't we take every opportunity to lower 
the deficit that we have and to pay down the debt?
  We are in an awful fix here, and we are digging deeper and deeper 
with a bill like this that increases the overall spending by, I think, 
12 percent from last year to this. Why not take every opportunity to 
cut the spending.
  This is an opportunity. I plan to vote for every amendment that will 
cut any funding from this bill. But, please, if we have an opportunity 
here to cut $1 million, I would hope that we would do so.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be postponed.


              Part D Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk designated as part D No. 
12.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part D amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``National Institute of Food and Agriculture--
     Research and Education Activities'' shall be available for 
     special grants for Potato Research in Idaho, Oregon, and 
     Washington, and the aggregate amount otherwise provided under 
     such heading (and the portion of such amount specified for 
     special grants) are each hereby reduced by $1,037,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. This amendment would remove slightly more than $1 million 
for potato research in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and it would reduce 
the overall cost of the bill by a consistent amount.
  Now, if you like earmarks, then this spud's for you, I guess. But if 
you don't, and if you think that we need to save some money somewhere, 
then I would urge support for this amendment.
  According to one of the sponsors of the earmark, the potato industry 
generates about $3.4 billion throughout the State of Washington. In 
Idaho, the potato industry contributes nearly half a billion dollars in 
wages. Potato sales equal about $7 billion annually.
  According to the USDA, last year potato farmers received nearly $3.9 
billion for their crop. Now, how is it that this industry that receives 
billions of dollars a year isn't expected to invest in its own 
research? I know that it does some, but why are the taxpayers year 
after year ponying up more money to a $7 billion industry? This is a 
drop in the bucket to the industry, but a million dollars is a lot of 
money to the average American family.
  According to one of the sponsors' Web sites, every dollar invested in 
potato research yields a $39 return. I would submit that for those of 
us who believe in the free market, that any dollar invested that yields 
a $39 return, then private industry will do well investing in its own 
research. We don't have to ask the taxpayer to pile on.
  Potatoes were first introduced in the United States in the 1600s. 
They are now the fourth largest food crop in the world. They have 
sustained nations in time of famine due to their ability to survive in 
many climates, and they are inexpensive to harvest. Seventy-nine 
percent of U.S. households consume potatoes at least 1.8 times a week. 
I am included in that number.
  I just don't know why we are asking, again, the taxpayer, to fund 
research over and over and over again for an industry that can clearly 
support itself here.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. With that, I will yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I do admire my friend from Arizona. His persistence on this is 
absolutely incredible, and I share a lot of the goals that he is trying 
to accomplish.
  I really think that the gentleman's problem is not so much with 
individual programs and maybe his problem is with the Ag-Research 
Service, and maybe the gentleman ought to introduce a bill to get rid 
of the Ag-Research Service, and that would probably take care of all 
the underlying problems.
  But the point is the Ag-Research Service has been involved in 
research of a number of crops, including potatoes, for a number of 
years. This does go to the Northwest. Fifty percent of the potatoes 
that are grown in the United States are grown in Idaho, Washington and 
Oregon. There are three State universities that are involved. 
University of Idaho, Washington State University and Oregon State 
university submit funds for this research with these matching dollars.
  In addition, the potato commissions in each of those respective 
States match those dollars. And as a result, we have developed 
varieties of potatoes now that are more disease resistant. I think the 
tonnage, for example, in the last 50 years has increased greatly in 
Washington State because of the new varieties, potatoes they have 
brought on the market. In fact, 100,000 acres are these new varieties 
that people may or may not like.
  And, again, the issue is, okay, maybe we shouldn't have any research 
at all in government funded. That's another debate. And the gentleman 
had mentioned that only powerful Members of Congress, you know, get 
these earmarks. I would mention to the gentleman, before I came to 
Congress 15 years ago, this program was in existence and the funding 
this year is precisely level with last year. This is not new funding.
  So I would suggest to the gentleman that in this case, with potatoes, 
they are not a program crop.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. When potato farmers go out and plant 
their crops, they are probably the biggest gamblers in the world. And 
yet they don't mind putting some of their hard-earned cash when they 
make a profit into this research, because that may make them an even 
bigger gambler next year with one of their varieties.

[[Page 17134]]

  So I respect the gentleman with what he is trying to do, but his 
issue may not be with individual crops. And this amendment goes to an 
individual crop in my area. Maybe his issue is with Ag-Research Service 
in general, that's a matter for another debate.
  Mr. FLAKE. My issue is with overall spending, one; two, is with the 
need to earmark. If this funding is receiving earmarks, basically, 
about a million dollars a year, when clearly you have an industry that 
is capable of funding its own research, now, I agree with the 
gentleman's point about this isn't one of the program crops; it's not 
wheat not corn. It's not a crop that gets massive subsidies under the 
farm bill. We shouldn't be doing those subsidies.
  But two wrongs don't make a right. We shouldn't say, well, hey, we 
are subsidizing those, so we ought to bring some subsidy over here as 
well. The truth is we can't afford either of them now. We have a 
deficit of nearly $2 trillion this year. When I came to this 
institution just 8 years ago, our entire Federal budget was just around 
$2 trillion. Now we are going to have a deficit that equals that 
amount.
  Can't we in this year at least say, you know, maybe we ought to cut 
back on potato research just a little. Maybe we ought to cut back on 
other earmarks in this bill because we are simply adding to the debt, 
adding to the deficit more than we can take.
  So it's not just that I have an issue with agricultural research 
spending, but I do have an issue with the way it's allocated. Because, 
as I have already demonstrated, this is awarded based on a spoils 
system.
  When just 14 percent of the Members in this body, those who are 
represented on the Appropriations Committee, direct more than half of 
the earmark spending in this bill, you have got a spoils system. I 
don't know what else to call it.
  And that's one issue with this bill and why I am offering these 
amendments. And, two, if we don't like the way the Federal agencies are 
doing it, then we should direct them to do it differently. We should 
set parameters, but we shouldn't set up a parallel system and say, you 
award it that way, but we are going to direct ours this way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman.
  And the reason why the gentleman from Arizona's amendment makes no 
sense at all is because the free market underinvests in public goods, 
public goods like education, like roads and research. The market will 
not put enough money into research, and the potato research program 
that Mr. Flake's amendment intends to cut has been highly successful in 
a multi-State effort in order to develop new commercial potato 
varieties.
  The potatoes released from this program account for about 16 percent 
of current production. And the program not only creates new potato 
varieties for consumers; it also improves the nutritional value of 
potatoes and increases crop yields. In addition, this project provides 
significant environmental benefits, including reduction in the need for 
pesticides, water and fertilizer; and it fits into our overall goal of 
reducing energy consumption and increasing our production of the goods 
and services that we need.
  Mr. FLAKE. I find it a curious assumption that the free market will 
not invest in research when one of the sponsors' Web sites, as I 
mentioned, states that every dollar invested in potato research results 
in a $39 return.
  Now, any, any hedge fund, any investor of any type.
  Mr. WU. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. You bet, sure.
  Mr. WU. The reason why the free market will underinvest, even though 
given that rate of return, it's whoever pays for the research doesn't 
reap the benefits. It's a public good. It's a basic of capitalist 
economic theory which the gentleman should understand.
  Mr. FLAKE. I don't understand. I am sorry. If the return on 
investment, if the potato industry gets a return on an investment of 
$39 for every dollar returned, then it does reap some of the benefits. 
Yes, that potato is a public good, but it's also a private profit, 
unless we have socialized potato farming here, and I don't think we 
have.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FLAKE. I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and I do 
want to speak in opposition of this amendment, although I do support 
the gentleman from Arizona's effort to shine the late of day on 
spending, and I think that these debates are very important as we are 
making these decisions.
  As has been mentioned, the funding in this bill does go for ongoing 
agricultural research, potatoes specifically in this amendment, and it 
does have a significant impact on the economy for the State of 
Washington and the Pacific Northwest. The ability of potato farmers to 
keep potato crops healthy and disease free, especially given the 
constant change in weather conditions and the arrival of new pests and 
disease, is an ongoing battle.
  Yet through breeding research and variety development, potato growers 
have access to critical research that enables them to identify the 
strongest varieties for growth, production, storage and processing. 
Like most of us here, I am concerned about out-of-control spending. But 
I am also concerned about these tough economic times, and we should 
support measures that are going to grow the economy. This research does 
exactly that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
Flake amendment to cut potato research.
  Potatoes are an important part of our national diet and potato 
farming is an important part of our national economy.
  The $1 million included in this bill for Potato Research goes 
directly to developing potato varieties that provide profitable, 
sustainable production for the grower, and a healthy, inexpensive food 
supply for American consumers.
  In Skagit County in my district, over 13,000 acres are devoted to 
potatoes.
  However, late blight disease is a constant threat to my local 
farmers, and growers use the research provided them by this program to 
minimize their losses.
  Washington state is second only behind Idaho in potato production in 
the country producing over 9 billion pounds of potatoes every year.
  The economic value of the potato industry to Washington is 
approximately $3.5 billion supporting nearly 20,000 farming jobs. These 
jobs can be found across our state, and it is critical that we protect 
them.
  The potato breeding program in the Pacific Northwest, the target of 
this amendment, is a partnership among the USDA Agricultural Research 
Service, the University of Idaho, Oregon State University, Washington 
State University, and the potato commissions of the three states.
  For every dollar invested in the Northwest Tri-State Potato breeding 
program, a value of $39 results in improved quality and increased 
production.
  Mr. Chairman, this funding is important to my district, my state, and 
our country--and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be postponed.


             Part B Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Kingston

  Mr. KINGSTON. 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. 7 offered by Mr. Kingston:
       Page 74, after line 22, insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to administer, or pay the salary or expenses of 
     personnel for

[[Page 17135]]

     the administration of, the provision of broadband loans or 
     loan guarantees made using authorities under this Act on or 
     before September 15, 2010.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, for many years the funding level for 
broadband programs or Rural Loan Program was handled by the Rural 
Utility Service in the Department of Agriculture. That funding was 
about $400 million. With the stimulus package that we passed in 
February, $790 billion package, there was about $7 billion for 
broadband grants and loan programs.
  Two and a half billion of that money went to the Department of 
Agriculture, and the rest went to a brand-new program which really did 
the same thing and duplicated what is done in the Department of 
Agriculture. It all should have gone there. But if you think about a 
program going from 400 million to about 7 billion, that's not a plus-
up. That's winning the lottery.
  Now, I can only focus on $2.5 trillion, and you can't even do that 
because that's already in the stimulus bill already passed into law, 
but we can't focus on the $400 million.

                              {time}  2215

  What this amendment does, and frankly if I could have offered a 
cleaner amendment, I would have just had a straight cut of the $400 
million. But what this does, it is similar; it says you can't use the 
$400 million that is in this until we have used the $2.5 billion that 
has already been passed into law.
  The reason why that is important is when the stimulus bill was 
passed, there was so much talk about we are going to use this money 
immediately, shovel-ready projects, jobs will be created. And as we 
know, that was when the unemployment level was 8 percent and now it is 
nearly 10 percent. It has not stopped the bleed and job loss. But the 
fact is that $2.5 billion is still sitting there, and yet we are coming 
along now and giving another $400 million.
  What this amendment says is we can't use the $400 million until the 
$2.5 billion is paid down. I urge support of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, rural broadband connects people and 
communities, gives them access to information on everything from health 
and housing and education to public safety and economic development. It 
also gives people access to opportunity.
  As the Internet continues to grow and develop, and as it plays a 
larger and larger role in driving our 21st century economy, we simply 
cannot afford to let rural areas languish behind the rest of the 
country.
  An earlier generation of leaders used Federal investment to help wire 
rural areas for electricity. What we are trying to do is give citizens 
in rural areas the tools they need to compete and excel in this 
economy.
  By prohibiting funds from being used to administer or pay the salary 
of personnel who would administer USDA's broadband loans, the 
gentleman's amendment would gut this critical program at a time when we 
need to redouble our efforts in this area.
  Let's be clear. In proposing to stop the administration of loans, the 
gentleman is also asking Congress to stop critical oversight and 
monitoring of existing borrowers, functions that the government cannot 
afford to lose, especially if we are to ensure that taxpayers' dollars 
are well spent.
  No one can deny the need to expand access. The United States is 
currently 15th in the world in providing broadband service. Only 38 
percent of those living in rural America now have broadband at home, 
compared to 55 percent of all adult Americans. In rural communities, 24 
percent of dial-up users said broadband wasn't available where they 
lived, more than 7 times those in cities.
  This is not a partisan issue. There is unanimous support for 
increased broadband service to rural communities. Few people disagree. 
Expanding broadband is the type of Federal program that cannot only 
connect rural areas to the global community, but also generate great 
growth in rural America and pay very big dividends for our Nation.
  The bill makes important investments in rural broadband, provides 
$418 million for broadband loans and grants. It includes an 
appropriation of $81.6 million, an increase above $18 million of the 
amount available for 2009.
  It includes distance learning. The funding is there for distance 
learning and telemedicine grants, for broadband telecommunications loan 
subsidy. This is an investment that requires national leadership, which 
is why we included a significant amount in the recovery program. It was 
$2.5 billion to rural utility services and more than $7 billion in 
total. There is already a substantial demand for the funding. The 
funding increases in this legislation help to build on the investment 
that was made in the Recovery Act, and it will help us to realize a 
strong economic return. For every dollar invested in broadband, the 
economy sees a tenfold return on that investment.
  As the Farm Bureau noted regarding new investments in broadband, the 
$7.2 billion allocated for broadband will help rural communities 
participate in a recovering economy, while modernizing rural education 
and health care. It creates an economic opportunity for rural 
Americans, allows farmers and ranchers to take advantage of the 
technology to help them remain profitable and competitive.
  I do not think this is the time to be gutting this program, 
particularly given the delicate state of our economic recovery. We need 
to do everything we can right now to promote rather than stifle 
economic innovation in small towns. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Kingston amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend, the 
chairwoman of the committee, that is a very eloquent argument for the 
use of a broadband loan program, but it has nothing to do with this 
amendment because the broadband loan program is not under trial here.
  But let me explain it this way to the Members who are not on the 
committee. I love going to Ryan's, and they probably have Ryan's in 
Connecticut, but Ryan's is one of those all-you-can-eat buffets. You go 
through the line and there is fried chicken and there is fried fish, 
and fried catfish, probably imported, who knows? There are all kinds of 
vegetables and desserts. You go through and you fill your plate up, and 
then you are allowed for the $8 price to go back and get some more 
food.
  Well, let's just think going through the line was the stimulus 
program, Mr. Chairman. We filled up our plates, and I often found 
myself as a father of four saying to my kids, you can't go get more 
food until you finish what is on your plate. It just makes sense. Go 
ahead and eat the four pieces of fried chicken that you got before you 
go and grab another one that you don't have and you don't need. That is 
all this amendment is. It is not a trial of broadband. Broadband is 
funded by $2.5 billion under the RUS in the USDA under existing law, 
period. So $2.5 billion.
  And all I am saying to the oftentimes gluttonous government here in 
Washington, D.C., is, don't go back through the buffet line until you 
have consumed what you've got. And when you have emptied that plate, 
then you can go back and get that fifth piece of fried chicken in the 
form of $400 million for broadband loans. At that point I don't know 
who we will be loaning the money to because, as I said earlier, there 
is another $3.5 billion in another program in another department. But 
that, too, is a matter of law, and that is not under scrutiny either.
  The only thing I am saying is what I have said to my four children 
over the years when we would go to the Ryan buffet: Don't get more food 
on your plate until you finish what you've got. I urge support of this.

[[Page 17136]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be very much against the 
interest of rural America. There is no community in this country that 
will have a decent economic future if they cannot be competitive by 
being attached to modern technology, and that certainly includes 
broadband.
  The gentleman has mentioned the economic recovery package and the 
funds that have been appropriated there, and he has made much of the 
fact that that money has not gone out. We are only 4 months into a 
program that is supposed to last 30 months, and so I urge the gentleman 
to wait a few months to see what happens on that project. I think you 
will see money moving out.
  The only other point I would make is this: If you think there is too 
much money for broadband in the budget, the worst place in the world to 
take it out of is the USDA. When this program was first proposed in the 
stimulus package, the Obama administration proposed putting all of the 
money in the Commerce Department. People like me objected because we 
know the history of rural America. We understand why REAs had to be 
created to go into rural areas because the big power companies wouldn't 
bother, because they couldn't make enough money going into rural areas. 
It's the same score now. Your big companies don't want to go into rural 
areas without subsidy on broadband. The fact is you can trust the 
Agriculture Department to focus much more on the needs of rural America 
than you can the Commerce Department. That's why we put the additional 
money in. And to take $400 million out of the Agriculture Department 
now would be a major mistake if you care about the future economic 
health of rural America.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
  You know, I think this is truly about the economic revitalization of 
a part of the country that has been so sorely lacking, and the 
application process--
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to my friend to finish 
her sentence.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Well, I was just saying that the process on the economic 
recovery package, the application process is underway. It began at the 
beginning of this month. That money is going out. The demand is up for 
broadband. Let's give rural America a fighting chance.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say this, representing a very rural district, a 
district where you can't get cell phone coverage, and a lot of the 
wireless technology is in already, I support what is going on. I agree 
with the chairman; it would have been nice for all of the money to go 
into RUS and not the Department of Commerce because it was an existing 
infrastructure for making this loan program.
  The only thing I am saying is you don't get the new money until you 
have spent the existing money.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
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 gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Kosmas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snyder, Chair of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________