[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9925-9957]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015


                             General Leave

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

                              {time}  1351


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4800)

[[Page 9926]]

making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of 
Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 4800, making 
appropriations for FY 2015 for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The bill before us is unique 
in that the programs supported in this bill will impact every American 
every day of the year.
  We support America's farmers and ranchers, who are very vital to our 
Nation's economy and our health and well-being. We support those at 
home in need with food and housing and provide rural businesses with 
low-interest loans and grants to help them sustain local economies. We 
help others around the world that face starvation and malnutrition. We 
support research and development in agriculture to improve productivity 
and stability. We support the oversight of commodity markets, providing 
confidence for businesses, traders, investors, and the public. We 
support a safe food supply and safe and effective drugs and devices. We 
are fortunate this Nation can and does support these vital programs.
  The bill before us this afternoon reflects a delicate balance of 
needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible 
bill for FY 2015 spending levels for the departments and agencies that 
are under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. We have had to 
carefully prioritize the funding in this bill. We have had to make some 
hard choices about how to limit spending.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for 
supporting us with a very fair allocation for this bill and for helping 
us move this bill forward.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the 
subcommittee ranking member. He has been a valuable partner and 
colleague as we have moved forward with this legislation. I appreciate 
his commitment. I appreciate his understanding as we have moved forward 
on a wide variety of programs in this bill, and I sincerely thank him 
for his help. While I and the other subcommittee members have a wide 
array of agriculture in our districts, Mr. Farr represents an area 
sometimes referred to as the ``salad bowl of the world.''
  I want to thank all of the members of the subcommittee for their 
help, and I also thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who 
is the ranking member for the full committee.
  I also thank the majority staff for their hard work: Tom O'Brien, 
Betsy Bina, Pam Miller, Andrew Cooper, and Karen Ratzow.
  I also appreciate the professionalism and the cooperation of the 
minority staff. In particular, I want to thank Martha Foley and Hogan 
Medlin for their help during all of the long hours spent putting this 
bill and report together, as well as Rochelle Dornatt, Troy Phillips, 
and Caitie Whelan of Mr. Farr's staff.
  When the subcommittee began the FY15 appropriations process, I asked 
my colleagues to keep in mind three guiding principles. They were: to 
ensure the proper use of funds through robust oversight, ensuring the 
appropriate level of regulation to protect producers and the public, 
and to ensure funding is targeted to vital programs.
  These three principles guided us from the time the President's budget 
request was first submitted to the subcommittee until this bill was put 
before the House today. This basic framework helped us set principles 
and priorities during the 10 budget hearings and oversight hearings 
that we had throughout the spring, which covered all of USDA's mission 
area, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, and also included 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
  They also formed a framework for us to consider the many requests we 
received from our colleagues on this bill. In particular, we received 
more than 3,900 requests from 326 Members to support, reduce, or amend 
funding levels in the numerous accounts of this bill. Of course we 
could not meet every request, but we tried to address these requests in 
a bipartisan manner and in a way that was under the House rules. As 
such, there are no earmarks included in this bill.
  The total funding for this bill is $142.5 billion. This is $1.5 
billion below the President's request and $3 billion below the FY14-
enacted level. The bill includes $20.88 billion in discretionary budget 
authority, which is the same as the FY14-enacted level. Mandatory 
spending totals $122 billion, or $3 billion below the FY14 level. These 
mandatory funds support USDA's farm, conservation, crop insurance, and 
nutrition programs.
  I would like to briefly mention a few highlights that are in this 
bill.
  We provide $2.8 billion for agricultural research. We have received 
many, many letters requesting support for the land-grant colleges and 
universities. We were able to provide level funding for them. We also 
provided $325 million, as requested, for the Agriculture and Food 
Research Initiative, which is USDA's premier competitive research 
grants program.
  We provide $870 million for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service. This agency works to eradicate plant and animal diseases and 
keeps the bad bugs out of the country. I am pleased to say that we were 
able to increase funding to combat citrus greening disease and the 
viral epidemic affecting the hog producers. This funding will 
supplement the emergency funding that the administration announced last 
week for research and surveillance purposes.
  The bill also includes more than $1 billion for the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service. This is approximately the same as the FY14 level, 
but $3.8 million above the request. It will maintain more than 8,000 
inspectors at more than 6,400 meat, poultry, and egg product facilities 
across the Nation.
  The bill provides $1.5 billion for the Farm Service Agency, and it 
does not allow the closure of any county offices. This proposal made no 
sense when the 2014 farm bill is still being implemented in county 
offices across the Nation. We also fully fund the various farm loan 
programs in this bill.

                              {time}  1400

  For the Natural Resources Conservation Service, we provide $869 
million to help farmers, ranchers, and private forest land owners 
conserve and protect their land and increase funding to help 
rehabilitate small dams.
  This bill is the only one of the 12 appropriations bills that truly 
focuses on rural America. It provides $2.6 billion for the rural 
development programs. That includes funding to support $881 million in 
business and industry loans, $1.3 billion in loans for rural water and 
waste programs, and $6.2 billion for rural electric and telephone 
infrastructure. We also provide more than $1 billion for the single-
family direct loan program, $1.1 billion for rental assistance, and $30 
million for the Mutual and Self-Help program.
  This bill includes both discretionary and mandatory funding for 
USDA's food and nutrition programs.
  In particular, it provides $6.6 billion for the Women, Infants, and 
Children program. This is $93 million below the FY14 enacted level, and 
it is actually $200 million below the budget request. But I want to be 
clear about the decreased funding because a declining caseload and 
large carryover balances from the previous year is why we are doing 
this. And let me stress that every person who is eligible for the 
program will be able to receive funding under this funding level in 
this bill.
  The bill includes $20.5 billion in required mandatory funding for 
child nutrition programs and $82.3 billion for the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance

[[Page 9927]]

Program, sometimes referred to as SNAP. This funding level helps 
support more than 47 million Americans each month.
  To support those in time of need in places like Syria, South Sudan, 
and the Central African Republic, the bill provides $1.7 billion for 
overseas food aid. We were able to provide a $66 million increase for 
Food for Peace grants, and $13 million for the McGovern-Dole Education 
and Child Nutrition Program offset from savings that we found elsewhere 
in the bill.
  The Food and Drug Administration receives $2.6 billion in 
discretionary funding in this bill. This is an increase of $23 million 
over the FY14 level. When the user fees are included, FDA will receive 
$4.5 billion in FY15.
  Within the total, the committee provides a $25 million increase of 
the full amount requested for food safety activities in the President's 
budget, and drug safety activities are increased by $12 million.
  Furthermore, the bill includes $218 million for the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission. This is an increase of $3 million above last year's 
level and is intended to address information technology needs.
  Before I close, I do want to address one issue that has opened up a 
necessary dialogue in local cafeterias and schools across the Nation. 
It is the provision that would allow schools to seek a temporary--and 
let me stress that it is a temporary--waiver from the current school 
lunch standards if a school district has lost money over the last 6-
month period as a result of trying to implement the new regulations.
  I have had a constant stream of letters, I have talked to people, 
received emails, and I have had meetings over the past year with school 
nutritionists, with the teachers, and the school administrators. I have 
talked to parents, and I have talked to students, all concerned about 
the rising cost, the increased waste, and the declining participation 
in the school lunch program.
  To tell the truth, the students have been concerned about the taste, 
they have been concerned about the variety and the quality of the 
meals. But, again, we have gone to the school nutritionists, to the 
teachers, and the administrators who have identified where the real 
problem is.
  This is a real problem in many school districts across the country. 
Some school districts may not be experiencing this problem, but many, 
many are across the country. This bill acknowledges the concerns of 
schools and responds to their requests for a certain amount of 
flexibility. It only allows schools more time if they need it. In fact, 
it provides something very similar to the flexibility that USDA 
recently announced for the whole grain requirements.
  The benefits to farmers, ranchers, consumers, businesses, and 
patients provided in this bill far outweigh any one or two objections a 
Member may have about this bill. The bill represents our best take on 
matching needs with limited resources. We have tried to work hard to 
produce the best bill we possibly can within the resources that we have 
had to work with in this appropriations process.
  I thank the Members for their attention, and I would urge all the 
Members to support this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to 
passing this bill on the floor as we move forward, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

[[Page 9928]]





[[Page 9929]]



[[Page 9930]]



[[Page 9931]]



[[Page 9932]]



[[Page 9933]]



[[Page 9934]]



[[Page 9935]]



[[Page 9936]]



[[Page 9937]]



[[Page 9938]]



[[Page 9939]]



[[Page 9940]]



[[Page 9941]]


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

                              {time}  1415

  Prescription drug abuse is a scourge on this Nation, and FDA can and

[[Page 9942]]

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

[[Page 9943]]

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

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this agriculture 
funding bill. Budgeting is about choices, and this bill makes the wrong 
choices for the American people.
  Time and again in this legislation the House majority has chosen to 
put profits and politics before nutrition and food safety. It puts 
partisan ideology before impartial science, and the interests of big 
corporate industries over the needs of families and children.
  Examples: for decades our Federal nutrition policies have been based 
on the principle of sound scientific research and evidence-based 
decisionmaking. Until now, Congress has never prescribed the details of 
Federal nutrition programs. This bill circumvents the Institute of 
Medicine process for determining the appropriate foods to offer in the 
Supplemental Women, Infants, and Children program, or the WIC package.
  To benefit industry, the House majority adds white potatoes to WIC, 
despite the advice and findings of nutritionists that white potatoes 
are not lacking in a mother's and children's diets. In fact, they are 
the most consumed vegetable in America. This is the same type of 
thinking from Congress that got pizza called a vegetable.
  Further, this bill would waive requirements for schools to meet the 
nutrition standards that we passed as part of the 2010 Healthy Hunger-
Free Kids Act. These standards, developed by experts, improve school 
meals, remove unhealthy junk foods in our Nation's schools. The 
standards have already been achieved at over 90 percent of America's 
schools and are working to help kids choose healthier food options. 
House Republicans are trying to appease special interests by weakening 
child nutrition programs in this bill.
  The bill also undermines menu labeling and creates carve-outs for 
industries at the expense of health. It assumes a passage of an 
accelerated and unsafe poultry inspection system that increases the 
chance of contaminated chicken on our kitchen tables just so companies 
can make more profit.
  At a time when foodborne illness outbreaks are a continual challenge, 
it cuts the Food Safety and Inspection Service, a linchpin of our food 
safety efforts, by $6 million, putting families at risk, and no 
permanent inspectors will be able to be hired.

[[Page 9944]]

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

[[Page 9945]]


  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the 
great State of California (Mr. George Miller), the author of the Child 
Nutrition Act. He probably knows more about child nutrition than 
anybody in Congress.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, these are not regulations 
that were written in Washington, D.C. These are regulations that were 
written in cooperation with school food service personnel, 
superintendents and teachers and school districts all over the country.
  After many years of deliberation, we have continued to improve this 
program. Plate waste is less now than it was before. What we have 
discovered is, if children can select what they wanted to eat from a 
healthy menu, where we didn't have to worry that they were just 
selecting high-sugar content and high-salt content, they were eating 
what they liked, what they became familiar with, plate waste went down.
  The purpose of this program is not to increase the profits of food 
processors or the agribusiness industry in this country. The purpose of 
this program is to improve the nutrition of children in our schools. 
Why? Because we understand that nutrition is directly connected to how 
well those children do in the classroom, not because I say so, not 
because the Secretary of Education says so or the Secretary of 
Agriculture, but because classroom teachers will tell you that if 
children don't have nutrition in the morning, if there is not food in 
their homes and they come to school, they start to act out in class 
because they start to drift. And the fact is the school breakfast 
program has made a remarkable difference. The school lunch program has 
made a remarkable difference in children not acting out in class and 
children being able to concentrate and to perform better, to get better 
grades, to graduate from high school. It is directly connected.
  Now what we see is that industry thinks that this is simply some kind 
of marketing system for their products. It is like white potatoes 
aren't available to poor people, white potatoes aren't available to 
people on food stamps, white potatoes aren't available in America. Yes, 
they are. But in the WIC program, it is directly related to the health 
of that mother, the fetus, the newborn infant, and the young child. We 
have to think about what a healthy meal means to the healthy 
development of that child. A surplus of white potatoes in that diet is 
not necessarily what you want to have happen.
  In that schoolroom, what we want is good nutrition. We are not going 
to let that be dictated by the industry. The idea that somehow school 
districts can't comply, well, 90 percent have complied, and 90 percent 
have complied within the additional amount of money that the Federal 
Government made available so they could comply.

                              {time}  1445

  The Secretary has been reaching out to those districts in trouble, 
and I suggest those districts reach out to other districts in their 
area that are complying and finding this to be helpful. This isn't some 
big burden by the Federal Government. This is working in 90 percent of 
the districts.
  Our own School Nutrition Association of California is against this 
waiver. We have very creative people. In our committee, we brought 
those people in and we talked about plate waste, we talked about 
flexibility, and that was incorporated in this legislation when it 
became the law of the land.
  So on the whim and the misinformation that somehow it is not working, 
somehow it is impossible to do, I will stand with 90 percent of the 
districts and school food service people who are implementing it. I 
will stand with the health officials. I will stand with the teachers 
that understand what a difference it means to have healthy and 
nutritious food available to these children during the school day.
  We have got to support the Farr amendment. We have got to take care 
of our children. We have got to give them an opportunity to learn in 
our schools, and good nutrition provides that opportunity. Bad 
nutrition interrupts that opportunity.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. And the time is expired for this 
kind of legislation.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I know this has been a controversial issue in this bill. I sincerely 
think that everybody in this House is well-intentioned about kids' 
meals, so I in no way want to say the other side is trying to hurt the 
schoolchildren. To indicate that the Republicans are trying to hurt the 
school kids is a complete misreading on what the Republicans are trying 
to do and what we are trying to do in this bill.
  There are so many good intentions about this. I think what has 
happened is, a lot of the regulations as they have come down to a lot 
of these school districts, every school district is different, and it 
is hard to have a cookie cutter mentality in every school district in 
the Nation. That is really what makes this Nation. We are many States 
but we are one Nation, and they are not all the same.
  What this legislation would do with just some commonsense standards--
and I by no means say that my colleagues have bad intentions. I would 
never say that to my colleague from California, and I hope he would not 
say that about me on this issue. We are talking about providing lunches 
and flexibility to students and to the school nutritionists to meet 
their needs. We are not asking that this roll back the nutrition 
standards, we are not asking that it gut the underlying law. But some 
of the comments made, those would be the comments that you would think 
that we are trying to gut the entire law.
  Mr. Davis made some very important comments when he spoke. All of us 
want kids to eat healthy meals, and we want to see child obesity 
decline. But simply providing school lunches that the kids won't eat 
and stopping there is not what this is about.
  Student participation in the program continues to decline. A lot of 
the students are now bringing their lunches while the kids that are on 
these meal programs, they have no choice to eat this food while the 
other kids are bringing much more unhealthy food to the cafeteria, and 
watching them eat this other kind of food. It is just really 
disconcerting to see this. But we all have the same goal. Like I said, 
it is very disconcerting to hear that some of us would want our kids to 
be obese or to be unhealthy, and that is furthest from the truth.
  I just want to say that because I think it is very important as we 
move forward with this debate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I would like to announce that the Tom Colicchio group--
he is one of those celebrity chefs and his group is called the Food 
Policy Action Network--they have told us that they are going to score 
the vote on this bill because of this provision that we are talking 
about right now and the amendment that I am going to offer to strike 
the provision.
  The reason I want to strike the provision in the bill is because it 
just gives it a blank waiver. It says, schools, you don't have to 
comply. That is too broad. We could have worked out some compromise 
language and more flexible language. But just to give them blank 
waiver, I think, is just an opt-out and doesn't necessarily get them 
back in, doesn't have any guidelines for how you can improve and get 
back on track. That's why I think it is a pretty extreme provision in 
the bill and ought to be knocked out.
  Another reason is that we are paying for it. The taxpayers of this 
country put up the money and we are allocating it to this program, and 
I don't think the taxpayers want their money to go to food that isn't 
nutritious, that doesn't help kids to be healthier. I am not 
insinuating that the other side wants that, but I am saying that with 
that money, as in everything we do in the whole rest of this bill, it 
comes with conditionality.

[[Page 9946]]

  Congress is a heavy parent. We don't just give money out. We also 
give instructions on what to spend it for and not to spend it for. When 
we are giving money to schools for school nutrition--for school lunch, 
school breakfast, school snack programs--we put some conditionality in 
it, and the conditionality is, let's buy healthy food with it, fruits 
and vegetables, and serve them to the kids.
  I know there are places that say that is not what the kids eat at 
home or what they like, and so they are throwing it away. That is 
called ``plate waste.'' But frankly, there is plate waste in our 
cafeteria here in Congress. There is plate waste everywhere. There is 
too much plate waste in America. When so much of the world can't get 
access to food we are throwing away about 50 percent of what we prepare 
every day, which is just appalling.
  How do you change that? One is you get kids to like what they are 
eating. We have to encourage our kids to eat vegetables. As was said 
earlier, you have to encourage your kids to take a bath, you have to 
encourage your kids to turn off the television set, you have to 
encourage your kids to do the math homework that they don't want to do. 
We give instruction.
  I think what is missing in this whole debate is the instructional 
opportunity. Frankly, America has got to face the fact that we have not 
really put much attention into raising a culture of people that have 
values in food health, in body health, and the fast food industry has 
been very good at getting a lot of sugar, a lot of salt, a lot of 
things out there that taste really great, and people want to eat that 
all the time, but your body is not made to handle all that.
  I think it is an opportunity for us to use the school nutrition 
program as a learning method. I point out that when I grew up there 
weren't any fast foods. McDonald's was the first fast food industry to 
come to our area. It came to the biggest city in my county in 1964. I 
had already graduated from college. So all my youth experience was 
eating at home, eating in the school, and there were never any fast 
foods. It was all fresh prepared every day. I didn't have the ability 
to get all that. If anything, it was in a can, and a whole new industry 
was developing to have fresh frozen.
  So we have an opportunity to help our national security problem with 
food nutrition because the military officers tell us that 75 percent of 
the youth today cannot qualify to get in the military--75 percent. That 
is just appalling. That is why they have indicated that we need to have 
a school nutrition program.
  We also see it in health care costs, the biggest cost in America. Why 
we did this whole health care reform was to bring down cost. Underlying 
all of that was, hey, we are going to raise healthier people in this 
country so we can avoid--the ounce of prevention--avoid those expensive 
costs when people get diabetes, obesity, and other things that are 
preventable. So what better way to teach the cost of prevention than 
through nutritional health and exercise.
  Lastly, why it is important that we wipe out this provision in the 
bill is because we are paying. The money is all there. So the schools 
that would be able to get the flexibility that you talk about, the 
waiver, they get to keep all the money but they don't have any of the 
responsibility to deliver the product, to deliver the nutritional 
foods. I think that is where we are wrong. We can't just give them 
money and then no responsibility to be wisely spent on the purposes for 
which it was intended.
  So that amendment is going to come up later, and I hope that I can 
get support from this amendment across the aisle.
  Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining so I can 
see how much time I can yield?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FARR. All right. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee for a 
colloquy.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Miller was talking about white potatoes. How does this 
bill affect white potatoes? I saw this movie called ``Fed Up,'' and 
white potatoes in general are the evil that cause people to get obese 
and gain weight. How are white potatoes in this bill?
  Mr. FARR. Thank you for asking. The other provision is not in this 
school nutrition program, but in the WIC--the Women, Infants, and 
Children--program where we give vouchers to mothers of newborns or 
pregnant women in expectation that they are having children. To give 
them access to healthy fruits and vegetables we give them vouchers.
  In that recommended formula, what the voucher should be spent on is, 
they are not allowed to spend them on white potatoes. Why? Because 
Americans eat about 90 pounds of white potatoes or potatoes per year. 
Think of it. They have hash browns for breakfast, french fries for 
lunch, and baked potatoes for night. That is a lot of potatoes in one 
day. Certainly, a newborn and about-to-be-born are not necessarily 
needing potatoes.
  Nonetheless, the potato industry is very powerful here and they were 
able to get a provision in demanding that the vouchers also include the 
ability to buy white potatoes. That is what stirred up this whole 
comment, because Congress has never dictated as to what you have to buy 
with it or to get into buying things that haven't been recommended as 
nutritional.
  Mr. COHEN. That is what I was astonished about, Mr. Farr, when I 
watched this movie. It was Katie Couric, and I forget all the other 
people involved in producing it. But it was about how Congress had 
basically acquiesced to special interests to change the dietary 
guidelines, to the detriment of children, women, and infants. 
Carbohydrates and the production of insulin causing the digestive 
system and body to produce fat is the main cause of obesity. It is not 
exercise. It is not pushing yourself away from the table so much, but 
they discovered it is carbs and white potatoes. So we are now putting 
white potatoes back because of the potato industry? This is the Idaho 
provision?
  Mr. FARR. It is often said as a food analogy that if you like 
sausages or laws you should never watch either of them being made. 
Perhaps what you are watching is that white potato mandate is getting 
stuck into this bill.
  Mr. COHEN. Sausages and white potatoes. Thank you, sir.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, we worked hard to try to put together a 
pretty good bill, except for these two provisions that we were just 
talking about and the underfunding of the Federal Commodities Futures 
Trading Commission, and we will be having amendments on those issues.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. May I inquire as to how many speakers the minority has.
  Mr. FARR. We don't have any further speakers.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Alabama has 1 minute remaining and the 
right to close.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that, 
unfortunately, I think is misunderstood.
  In school districts like Monticello, Illinois, that had to make the 
tough decision to pull out of the program, they don't get the Federal 
dollars anymore. They don't get the reimbursement. But they had to make 
the cost-benefit decision of whether or not to still feed those who 
qualify for free and reduced lunch out of their own pocket so they 
wouldn't lose the $100,000 a year. When the Los Angeles school district 
is losing upwards of $20 million a year, it is a big deal because 
school districts are having to choose between teachers and complying 
with Federal rules and regulations.
  I believe that the decision on how to feed children is best left to 
parents and our local school districts. Do you know what? The kids that 
are hurt the worst by this, that is why we are asking for this waiver. 
We are asking for the

[[Page 9947]]

USDA to approve a waiver. That is it; nothing more, nothing less.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I just wanted to clarify. I think the school district 
in Illinois you are talking about, they got out of the system because a 
hard boiled egg was not appropriate, or anything more than 12 ounces of 
skim milk was deemed inappropriate. That is what we are talking about, 
the regulations that are so out of whack.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. And the kids that are hurt the worst 
are the poorest kids who don't have the ability to go out to the 
convenience store when they are hungry afterwards, like many of the 
children of ours, and feed themselves. That is the only meal they may 
get that day, and we can't have Washington determining what that meal 
is.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, let me explain that not a drop of this money, 
a cent of it, can be spent on a teacher's salary. This is not, ``We are 
going to spend it on food or a teacher's salary.'' This is only for 
food, and the Federal Government takes sole responsibility for that. If 
States want to add something they can. But it is a Federal program, one 
of the only solid Federal programs in K-12 education.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Congressman Farr's 
amendment that would remove the waiver that would exempt schools from 
providing even half a cup of fruits and vegetables to their students 
for lunch. More than 200 education and nutrition organizations oppose 
the weakening of nutrition standards. While it may be difficult to get 
kids to eat healthier, it is possible, as 90 percent of schools are 
already meeting the standards.
  Rodney Taylor, the food service director at Riverside Unified School 
District, which is in my district, sent me a letter about the 
importance of nutrition standards, saying:

       Children in our district and many others are enjoying meals 
     that meet updated school lunch requirements from the USDA, 
     proving that it is possible to have healthy children and 
     healthy budgets. Letting schools opt out of these standards 
     will not help them move forward and will be detrimental to 
     the children they serve.

                              {time}  1500

  I thank Congressman Farr for introducing this amendment, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to support it, so we can move forward in the fight 
against childhood obesity.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of 
Section 738, a section allowing for the inclusion of white potatoes in 
the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 
Children (WIC), in the fiscal year 2015 Agriculture Appropriations Act. 
I commend Chairman Aderholt as well as Chairman Rogers for their work 
crafting this legislation in a bipartisan manner.
  Washington State is blessed with an incredibly diverse agriculture 
industry, providing our nation and the rest of the world with top-
quality products including asparagus, apples, cherries, peas, lentils, 
wheat--and of course--potatoes. In fact, Washington State is second in 
the nation when it comes to potato production, contributing 23 percent 
of the nation's potato crop. Additionally, potatoes are the fourth 
largest agricultural commodity in Washington, providing jobs for 
hundreds of people in Eastern Washington and all across the state. To 
that end, I was pleased to join my colleagues this past January in 
passing the bipartisan Omnibus spending bill which directed the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to include in the Special Supplemental 
Nutrition Program for WIC a range of fruits and vegetables including 
nutritious white potatoes.
  Science has proven that fresh white potatoes are more nutrient dense 
than many of the vegetables already included in the WIC program and 
possess a significant amount of vitamin C and potassium. Despite the 
latest research and the clear intention of Congress, the Administrative 
has repeatedly fought to exclude white potatoes from the WIC program. 
Relying on decades-old consumption data cited in a 2005 Institute of 
Medicine report, the Department of Agriculture has arbitrarily limited 
this healthy option from the diets of millions of Americans. In fact, 
the most current science available, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans, recommends greater consumption of starchy vegetables.
  Mr. Chair, I believe the exclusion of potatoes in the WIC program is 
both scientifically unfounded and unfair to those Americans seeking a 
greater variety of healthy food options. I appreciate the work done in 
this bill to correct this arbitrary restriction and I urge my 
colleagues to support Section 738 of this bill.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the 
Committee report language from the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA), and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, 2015 that relates to the FDA's proposed ``menu labeling'' rule.
  The most recent FDA draft rule fails to provide sufficient 
flexibility in allowing chain restaurants and other retailers to 
provide menu labeling information in the most efficient and effective 
way possible. Only through government bureaucracy in Washington, DC 
would a grocery store that cuts a piece of fruit into slices for 
customers be considered similar to a chain restaurant. FDA's initial 
proposal would essentially require in-store nutrition lab testing and 
new signage any time a grocery retailer assembles a salad from the 
produce area or sells a cup of soup using fresh ingredients. As a 
result, independently-operated grocers would not have the flexibility 
to offer the freshest and healthiest foods to their customers. Some may 
stop offering salads and other fresh foods altogether.
  Or, just look at the pizza industry. These small businesses that 
offer highly customized, made to order items and primarily service 
customers outside the restaurant are being forced to provide 
nutritional information not just for a few items but for every made to 
order option available.
  Like so many other pieces of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act, the menu labeling provision in the law is being interpreted 
as overly broad and leading to widespread unintended consequences. This 
is why I have introduced legislation that addresses the issue, and am 
grateful to Chairmen Aderholt and Rogers from including pertinent 
language in the Committee report.
  I support consumers being provided with important nutrition 
information; however, the FDA should find more common sense and 
flexible ways for retailers to be able to comply with these 
regulations. H.R. 1249, the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act will 
provide those common sense solutions should the FDA fail to do so.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today in 
opposition of the proposed language that provides schools with waivers 
for meeting school meal standards. As the House considers the 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015, I press my 
colleagues to support an amendment striking this waiver from the bill.
  Congress has made great progress in improving the health of our 
nation's students. Since the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids 
Act of 2010 school lunches and breakfasts have become healthier.
  In my District's Gahr High School, Food Service Cafeteria Manager, 
Linda Harbin, notes that the menu at Gahr High School and other schools 
in the ABC Unified School District changed drastically since the new 
school food guidelines began implementation. On average, Gahr High 
School serves 450 meals for lunch and before the new meal requirements 
they were only serving about 250 meals. Harbin meets monthly with about 
100 other school food service workers in my District, and is hearing 
they are having similar experiences with increases in meals being 
purchased and decreases in ``plate waste''. Requiring school meal 
standards is working.
  Students are currently served lower calorie meals with more fruits, 
vegetables and whole grains, helping reduce their risk for obesity, 
type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases. For many children, the 
meals they eat in school are the most nutritious meals they eat all 
week. With increasing rates of childhood poverty and obesity, coupled 
with a difficult economy and rising food costs, many families cannot 
afford more nutritious foods and rely on school meals as a quality 
source of nutrition for their children.
  We cannot waiver our support for improving the health of our 
students.
  As the House considers the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015, I ask that my colleagues join me in opposing language that 
provides schools with waivers for meeting school meal standards. Let's 
work together to keep our kids healthy.

[[Page 9948]]


  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong 
opposition to using the appropriations process to weaken federal child 
and school nutrition programs. Following the passage of the Healthy, 
Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, the United States Department of 
Agriculture proposed rules regarding implementation of meal standards 
in schools. Unfortunately, House Republicans are playing politics with 
our children's health.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill now contains a proposal that 
would allow schools to take a waiver to opt-out of school nutrition 
programs. House Republicans say that schools are having financial 
trouble meeting new standards, but data show that 90% of schools are 
currently meeting these updated standards.
  In a meeting with First Lady Michelle Obama, school officials from 
across the country stated that they have been successful in 
implementing these standards and serving students more grain rich 
products, fruits, and vegetables. The USDA and local officials have 
relied on feedback from students and school officials to formulate new 
menus.
  Even though some schools cite financial troubles in meeting new 
nutritional standards, we should not allow any and all schools to 
abandon implementing new standards with a waiver. The majority of 
schools has implemented these changes and seen success.
  For decades, Congress has based decisions regarding federal nutrition 
programs on science. I strongly believe that we must continue this 
practice for the benefit of our children. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this provision and instead to support Congressman Sam Farr's 
amendment to strike the waiver from the bill.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, each amendment shall 
be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. No pro 
forma amendment shall be in order except that the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or their respective 
designees, may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point 
for the purpose of debate. The chair of the Committee of the Whole may 
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Amendments so printed 
shall be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows.

                               H.R. 4800

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

                                TITLE I

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

                     (including transfers of funds)

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


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

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

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

  Ms. LEE of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentlewoman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank our chair 
and our ranking member for working with me on this amendment. I 
appreciate the bipartisan cooperation. Also, I want to thank our staff 
for helping us with this.
  This amendment would provide a badly needed increase to the school 
breakfast grant program of approximately $8.1 million. The offset for 
this amendment is the Secretary's administrative account and the 
administrative and expenses account.
  These competitive grants allow States, schools, and local educational 
agencies to purchase important equipment for their school breakfast 
program. The school breakfast program is a critical tool in the fight 
to keep our students fed with a nutritious meal at the start of the 
day.
  Oftentimes, this is the meal that children rely on to help them get 
through the day, especially toward the end of the day, when they are 
about ready to go home and they have not been fully fed at the 
beginning of the day.
  The bottom line is breakfast is very, very important to the growth, 
health, welfare, and development of our children.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LEE of California. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, the bill provides $25 million for USDA to 
make the school meal equipment grants. I understand the intent of this 
amendment would be to increase the funding to match the President's 
request for a total of $35 million. Since there is an acceptable 
offset, we would be willing to accept this amount.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is especially 
critical for low-income children, many of whom who have not had a 
nutritious meal since the previous day of school, so I really 
appreciate your support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

[[Page 9949]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Thompson of California

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

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

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because I believe 
that government must respect the people that it serves and always 
remember that government is a servant of the people.
  Several years ago, the Department of Agriculture closed an inspection 
station that was incredibly important to the city of Presidio in 
Presidio County, Texas.
  When I took office some 18 months ago and made inquiries, USDA never 
returned phone calls, never made any effort to work with us to 
determine why it is that that inspection station was closed.
  They refused to work with the city or the county or the local 
business community, and so businesses across the area were harmed in a 
way that they will never get their money back as a result of all of the 
lost business. Presidio was the leading cattle importation port in the 
country at the time.
  This amendment would zero fund their Office of Congressional 
Relations in an attempt to get the attention of the Department of 
Agriculture and indicate to them that their behavior is totally, 
thoroughly, and completely unacceptable.
  People in Presidio, as well as people elsewhere across the Nation, 
deserve respect. Those men and women who run businesses and depend on 
the cattle industry in that part of the State deserve to have their 
questions answered.
  For the Department to drag its feet for more than 2 years before 
giving a simple answer as to why that action was taken by the 
Department is totally, thoroughly and completely inexcusable.

[[Page 9950]]

  As I said, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would zero fund their Office 
of Congressional Relations in an attempt to get their attention.
  Having offered the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and made my point, I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas.
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinojosa

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

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

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

                              {time}  1515

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

                          Executive Operations

                     office of the chief economist

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

                       national appeals division

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

                 office of budget and program analysis

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

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

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

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

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

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

[[Page 9951]]

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

           Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

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


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

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

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

                         Office of Civil Rights

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

                  Agriculture Buildings and Facilities

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

                     Hazardous Materials Management

                     (including transfers of funds)

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

                      Office of Inspector General

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

[[Page 9952]]

     Public Law 95-452 and section 1337 of Public Law 97-98.

                     Office of the General Counsel

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

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

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

                              {time}  1530

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

                            Office of Ethics

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

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

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

                       Economic Research Service

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the 
Kelly-Cohen-Titus amendment to increase funding to the Summer 
Electronic Benefit Transfer program.
  For many young people, the end of school is an exciting day, and they 
get out for the summer. But for the millions of children and families 
who rely on school lunch for meals, the summer months are a time of 
stress, anxiety, and hunger when those meals disappear.
  The Summer Food Service Program, created by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, provides free, nutritious meals and snacks to help 
children get the nutrition they need to learn, play, and grow 
throughout the summer months when they are out of school.
  Last Monday, I joined the Summer Food Kickoff at Emerald Square in 
Memphis in support of this program. I had the opportunity to speak with 
kids, watch them in delight as they ate their lunch and listened to 
them read books provided by Dolly Parton's Imagination Library.
  This amendment would increase the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer 
for Children program by $3 million. The project allows USDA to study 
alternative approaches to providing food assistance to low-income 
children in urban and rural districts through the summer months.
  Additional funding to this program for children would not only reduce 
childhood hunger when school is out and encourage healthier eating but

[[Page 9953]]

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


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

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

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

                              {time}  1545

  I think, if you squeeze and trim these economic data collectors, you 
are really hurting the underlying economy of agriculture in the United 
States, so I would oppose your amendment.
  We need crop data. We need market data. We need nutritional data. We 
need rural economy data, and these are the agencies, particularly the 
ERS that

[[Page 9954]]

you are cutting, that collects that, so I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank my friend for yielding.
  In this bill, we are appropriating $1.2 billion of mandatory spending 
to gather data for research education and economic studies.
  Is there any reason why, within that $1.2 billion of getting data, 
that they cannot do the same function as we are with the Economic 
Research Service?
  Mr. FARR. Well, I am not sure that I understand the gentleman's 
question, but there are different kinds of data, and there are 
different places that you collect that data, as there is in everything 
we do in government and the private sector.
  I think what you are doing, I mean, you are taking a program--if you 
just kind of open the book and look at government and find all these 
areas where you think there is duplication, I think that the next step 
is to go and find out exactly where there is waste.
  Everybody is against--and we do trim waste because we are always 
looking for money, but this is not the place. There is no trim there. 
It doesn't get you anything. In fact, it hurts the users of that data, 
not being able to have it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

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

                     Agricultural Research Service

                         salaries and expenses

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

                        buildings and facilities

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

               National Institute of Food and Agriculture

                   research and education activities

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

              native american institutions endowment fund

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

                          extension activities

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

                         integrated activities

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

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

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

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service, including up to $30,000 for 
     representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to the 
     Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4085), $867,505,000, 
     of which $470,000, to remain available until expended, shall 
     be available for the control of outbreaks of insects, plant 
     diseases, animal diseases and for control of pest animals and 
     birds (contingency fund) to the extent necessary to meet 
     emergency conditions; of which $11,520,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be used for the cotton pests 
     program for cost share purposes or for debt retirement for 
     active eradication zones; of which $35,339,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be for Animal Health 
     Technical Services; of which $697,000 shall be for activities 
     under the authority of the Horse Protection Act of 1970, as 
     amended (15 U.S.C. 1831); of which $52,340,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be used to support avian 
     health; of which $4,251,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be for information technology infrastructure; 
     of

[[Page 9955]]

     which $156,500,000, to remain available until expended, shall 
     be for specialty crop pests; of which, $8,826,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be for field crop and 
     rangeland ecosystem pests; of which $47,417,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be for tree and wood pests; 
     of which $4,222,000, to remain available until expended, 
     shall be for the National Veterinary Stockpile; of which up 
     to $1,500,000, to remain available until expended, shall be 
     for the scrapie program for indemnities; of which $1,500,000, 
     to remain available until expended, shall be for the wildlife 
     damage management program for aviation safety: Provided, That 
     of amounts available under this heading for wildlife services 
     methods development, $1,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That of amounts available under 
     this heading for the screwworm program, $4,990,000 shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That no 
     funds shall be used to formulate or administer a brucellosis 
     eradication program for the current fiscal year that does not 
     require minimum matching by the States of at least 40 
     percent: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft and 
     the purchase of not to exceed four, of which two shall be for 
     replacement only: Provided further, That in addition, in 
     emergencies which threaten any segment of the agricultural 
     production industry of this country, the Secretary may 
     transfer from other appropriations or funds available to the 
     agencies or corporations of the Department such sums as may 
     be deemed necessary, to be available only in such emergencies 
     for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious 
     disease or pests of animals, poultry, or plants, and for 
     expenses in accordance with sections 10411 and 10417 of the 
     Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8310 and 8316) and 
     sections 431 and 442 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 
     7751 and 7772), and any unexpended balances of funds 
     transferred for such emergency purposes in the preceding 
     fiscal year shall be merged with such transferred amounts: 
     Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be 
     available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and 
     alteration of leased buildings and improvements, but unless 
     otherwise provided the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

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

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

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

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

                        buildings and facilities

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

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           marketing services

       For necessary expenses of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Service, $81,192,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall 
     be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the 
     alteration

[[Page 9956]]

     and repair of buildings and improvements, but the cost of 
     altering any one building during the fiscal year shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value of the 
     building.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Royce

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman and the ranking 
member for the work that they have done to bring this bill to the 
floor, but this bill can be improved.
  There is growing bipartisan support for improving our international 
food assistance to ensure that more people are helped for less money. 
Unfortunately, this bill fails to advance international food aid 
reform, and it actually reverses progress achieved in the 2014 farm 
bill, legislation enacted by this body just a few months ago.
  It fails to provide flexibility, so that up to 25 percent of the Food 
for Peace title II budget would be exempt from U.S. purchase 
requirements. If enacted, this proposal would have generated over $100 
million in efficiency savings and enabled the United States to reach an 
additional 2 million people in dire need of food aid. An effective 
international food aid program helps those in need, and it strengthens 
our international security.
  Finally, the bill fails to fund a congressionally authorized, broadly 
supported Local and Regional Procurement program. Following upon a 
successful pilot, the 2014 farm bill authorized $80 million per year 
for the Local and Regional Procurement program.
  That means we can buy food closer to the area in crisis, reducing 
transit time by more than 10 weeks, reducing the cost per food aid 
recipient by 20 to 30 percent. This was considered an important reform 
that won, again, broad bipartisan support.
  This amendment contains a modest shift in funding that will have a 
major impact, $10 million, while reducing funds for the administration 
of marketing and promotion programs that benefit major corporations. We 
can save lives. It is an easy choice.
  Mr. Chairman, our food aid takes too long to arrive and costs too 
much to get there. A former top aid official told our committee that:

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

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

                              {time}  1600

  USAID already allows for local and regional purchases so there is no 
need for the same program at the USDA.
  More importantly, this amendment would use taxpayer dollars to 
purchase commodities from foreign countries rather than right here at 
home. Unlike other foreign aid programs, the Food for Peace program is 
American-made through and through. It was designed to take American 
commodities on American ships overseas to feed those in need.
  The Food for Peace program supports American agriculture, exports, 
and jobs while increasing goodwill overseas and helping those in need. 
The USDA estimates that for every $1 billion in U.S. agricultural 
exports, 8,400 American jobs are created. We need to be focused on 
creating jobs here at home and growing our economy so the United States 
is able to be abundantly generous to countries that can't grow enough 
food to feed their growing populations.
  This amendment gives away American tax dollars to our foreign 
competitors and puts American jobs at risk. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment and support American farmers, workers, and 
taxpayers.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Mr. Royce's 
amendment. I want to work with him on an offset that I think might be a 
little more desirable.
  But the notion here somehow that we are going to undercut the reforms 
that were achieved in the farm bill that require food, on average, to 
take 74 days longer, when you use U.S.-sourced commodities, when it is 
going to be, on average, 25 percent more expensive, and to talk about 
our ``foreign competitors,'' when we are talking about being able to 
purchase locally from people who are on the edge of impoverishment, 
rather than flooding American

[[Page 9957]]

commodities that are more expensive late in the game and undercutting 
local production, I think is a sad step forward.
  I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and strongly urge support of 
this as we work for a better offset.
  Mr. ROYCE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. In closing, I would just say that I am open to working 
with the chairman and ranking member to find an appropriate offset in 
conference. However, it is essential to adopt this amendment now so 
that this matter can be set, we can put a marker down, and get this in 
place. I thank the gentleman for the support for the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Valadao) having assumed the chair, Mr. Jolly, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4800) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________