---

The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to House Resolution 581 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3161.

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 further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3161), as amended, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with Mr. Snyder (Acting Chairman) in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The Acting chairman: When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, the bill had been read through page 2, line 12, and pending was the amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to amendment No. 3 printed in the Congressional Record by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the amendments printed in part A of House Report 110-290 are adopted and the bill is considered read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.

The text of the remainder of the bill is as follows:

The Acting chairman: No further debate on any pending amendment being in order, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), as amended.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

The Acting chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, a further period of general debate is in order.

The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) each will control 15 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Weiner: Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues, Mr. Fossella and Mr. Crowley of New York, and commend the committee for increasing the APHIS budget to more vigorously attack the national challenge of the invasive species that are ravaging our plants and trees.

As you know, New York City is waging a war to stop the Asian Longhorned Beetle. Yes, Madam Chair, a tree grows in Brooklyn, thousands of them in fact, just as they do in Staten Island, the Bronx, Queens and Manhattan. Sadly, the Asian Longhorned Beetle has been advancing steadily.

Given that the USDA's work to defeat the ALB elsewhere has been successful and thus will require less funding going forward, can I ask for the commitment of the committee to endeavor in conference to grant the metropolitan area a larger portion of the Asian Longhorned Beetle account than it has received in the past?

Ms. DeLauro:I pledge to work with the gentlemen from New York on this issue.

Mr. Weiner: Thank you.

I yield now, if it is appropriate, to the gentleman from Staten Island, Mr. Fossella.

The Acting chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentlemen from New York to place their material into the Record.

Mr. Nadler: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time of the gentlewoman be extended by 1 minute.

The Acting chairman: The Chair may not entertain that kind of request.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that Mr. Nadler is concerned equally with Mr. Fossella, but I wanted to make sure that Mr. Fossella wasn't being cut out of the colloquy. So the reason why I reserved the right to object is I just wanted a better explanation from the gentleman.

Mr. Nadler: Mr. Chairman, I was asking for unanimous consent so the gentlewoman would have 1 additional minute, which I would hope she would yield to Mr. Crowley, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Fossella and myself.

The Acting chairman: Under the structured rule in the Committee of the Whole, this kind of unanimous consent agreement cannot be entertained.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is the unanimous consent request in order under the closed rule?

The Acting chairman: A request to extend general debate ordered by the House is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. In other words, out of the 15 minutes of general debate, that is where the time would come from?

The Acting chairman: From the remaining 29 minutes of general debate ordered by the House.

Ms. DeLauro:I yield an additional 1 minute for both, not each, but for both Mr. Crowley and Mr. Fossella to address this issue.

The Acting chairman: Does the gentlewoman from Connecticut yield time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley)?

Ms. DeLauro:I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Kingston: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting chairman: The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Kingston: I don't have a way to say this directly to my friend from Connecticut, but I will be glad to yield 1 minute of our time to Mr. Fossella and that way we can bring this to 2 minutes, but I don't know how to get there unless I ask a question like this.

The Acting chairman: After Mr. Crowley is recognized for 1 minute, then the gentleman from Georgia may yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Crowley and Mr. Nadler, 1 minute between the two.

Mr. Crowley: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

The Asian Longhorned Beetle is a continuing and growing problem in Queens County in New York. We appreciate your working for additional resources. I have heard from my constituents, like Jimmy Lanza of Woodside Queens, who are begging us for more resources to beat the beetle and protect the trees and green space of Queens County and New York City. I thank the Chair for her great work on this issue, and this overall excellent bill.

The Acting chairman: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is recognized for the remainder of the time.

Mr. Nadler: I just want to say that I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Weiner and Mr. Crowley. The Asian Longhorned Beetle is a serious problem, and we have to devote as much resources as possible to deal with it. I hope the committee will take that into consideration.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. Fossella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Kingston and Ms. DeLauro. And of course my colleagues, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Weiner, and Mr. Nadler, because despite this being a national problem, as you can imagine, are very specific to New York, and in my case, Staten Island has been under attack by the Asian Longhorned Beetle. The beetles have already killed 8,400 trees. Officials are expected to destroy 10,000 trees to keep the beetle from spreading throughout the U.S.

We know that 35 percent of all urban trees are at risk. Replacement value is $669 billion. The first evidence was found on a silver maple tree on March 22 by USDA tree climbers. This early detection gives hope the threat can be contained before it spreads to the nearby Greenbelt, which is an urban forest comparable to Rock Creek.

The bill before us today provides a little over $20 million to help eradicate the beetle, a far cry from the $48 million the USDA says is needed annually.

This a serious problem for Staten Island and the rest of New York City. I look forward to working with you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Kingston in an effort to provide additional funding in conference. Will you be willing to work with me on this issue?

Ms. DeLauro:I would be happy to work with the gentleman.

Mr. Fossella: I thank the gentlewoman.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Simpson: I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to you, Chairman DeLauro, Ranking Member Kingston, and both of your respective staffs for all of the hard work that has been put in this bill, a bill I expect to support.

I would like to address an issue of great importance not only to my constituents, but to the Nation's agricultural industry.

In 2006, the potato cyst nematode was discovered in our country for the first time on approximately 1,000 acres in eastern Idaho. PCN is one of the most destructive potato pests, and if left uncontrolled, can result in devastating crop losses of up to 80 percent.

This spring, the USDA, the Idaho Department of Agriculture began an aggressive eradication program. Due to the confined area and early detection of the infestation, we are optimistic that the eradication program will prove successful. However, the funding level designated for the potato cyst nematode in this bill falls short of the necessary funding levels to continue this eradication effort.

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture recently recommended that this program be fully funded at $12.8 million. While I appreciate the constraints the House Agriculture Subcommittee has worked under, I hope that the chairwoman would work with me to try to find the necessary funds to fully fund this program.

Ms. DeLauro:I understand the importance of the issue and will work with you in conference to address the funding needs of this eradication effort.

Mr. Simpson: I thank Chairman DeLauro.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. Clay: I thank the chairwoman for yielding. I have an amendment that I will not offer today per our earlier conversation.

My amendment would allow residents of neighborhoods to purchase properties that are vacant and, for the most part, are not suitable for renovation. These properties would be razed, the grounds cleared, covered with topsoil and planted with the seeds of produce to create urban gardens.

The produce would be harvested and distributed to the residents of the neighborhoods who would be able to purchase them at less than the market rates. I would love to have the gentlewoman's support in the future for this concept.

Ms. DeLauro:I appreciate the concept and recognize its importance and will work with the gentleman on this important issue.

Mr. Clay: I thank the gentlewoman.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Burgess: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I regret that it is necessary for me to come down and talk during the time for general debate because this is an amendment that should have been made in order by the Rules Committee, and I frankly do not understand when it so significantly affects food safety and would have been a perfecting amendment on the underlying bill, I frankly do not understand the inattention of the Rules Committee to this important issue.

We hear time and again the United States being besieged with dangerous food from certain countries. According to testimony before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on July 17, 2007, former FDA Associate Commissioner William Hubbard testified that in 1999 the FDA drafted a legislative proposal that would have given the Food and Drug Administration authority to require certain foreign countries to take more responsibility for the foods that they send into this country.

The agency proposal would have allowed the FDA to embargo a given food from a given country if there were repeated instances of that food being found contaminated when it arrived in the United States. Countries that send safe food, they have no reason to be concerned. They would be unaffected. But countries that demonstrated a pattern of disregard of United States safety standards would have to increase their oversight of foods exported from their country. Have we heard of any examples of that in the past 6 months?

Unfortunately, Congress did not accept the recommendation, and the situation with some imported foods from some countries has only gotten worse. On page 96 of the committee report for H.R. 3161, it states that "the Committee believes that the Food and Drug Administration is failing to do what is needed to ensure the safety of our food supply." Furthermore, "the Committee directs the Food and Drug Administration to develop a performance plan that establishes measurable benchmarks for concrete improvements in the performance of food safety missions."

In formulating the plan, the FDA is to look at the process for reviewing food safety systems in countries that export to the United States, and that these proposals are not dissimilar to measures the Food and Drug Administration has proposed in the past or may be considering currently.

On page 97, the committee report states that "the Committee provides for an additional $7 million for increased activities to protect the safety of imported foods."

My amendment would not have allocated any new funds to the FDA. But instead, it seeks to direct a portion of these funds already allocated towards increased activities to protect the safety of imported foods and on formulating an embargo plan. This plan would allow the FDA to prohibit a specified food from a specified country from entering into the United States if there were repeated instances that that food was found contaminated when it arrived in the United States.

Again I submit, we have heard several news report over the last 6 months where exactly this scenario has played out. We have to stop them from sending harmful food into our country. This would have been a good amendment, and I don't understand why it was not taken up by the Rules Committee.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Moran of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to address two important issues that USDA provides in serving my farmers and ranchers in Kansas and across the country, the desire to see that those services are provided at the local level.

The first issue, although not very glamorous, is very important. It is the funding of nondiscretionary FSA technology expenses. This winter, many of my producers went to their local FSA office only to discover the computers were not working. In many instances they had to set aside all of the other computers so they could try to allow the farmers to access the computer system and sign up for the programs. The delays were for months.

In the President's budget, $23.8 million was requested for fixed IT operating expenses. Those operating expenses are required to operate and maintain FSA's existing computer system. In this bill the committee only appropriates $10 million. FSA does not have a choice in paying its fixed IT operating expenses. If sufficient funding is not appropriated, FSA will be forced to reduce its staff to keep its IT system operating, and I believe that would adversely affect the services provided by our local offices.

The second issue is our NRCS county offices. The bill we are considering today has two provisions halting county office closures for NRCS's sister agencies, FSA and Rural Development, RD. The primary reason for delaying county office closures is we are currently in the midst of writing a new farm bill. And while I am glad to see that this bill addresses the FSA and RD office closures, I would also like to see the same approach taken with NRCS.

I look forward to working with the chairwoman and the ranking member and I would ask for the chairwoman to enter into a colloquy with me to indicate her interest in this topic.

Ms. DeLauro:I am very interested in working with you, as we have talked about in the past, and will continue to do that as we move forward.

Mr. Moran of Kansas: I thank the chairwoman and look forward to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Kingston: And I want to say, we will certainly work with the gentleman from Kansas. I know you are an advocate on this.

Ms. DeLauro:I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Cramer: First, I want to congratulate you for your work on this bill. Sincerely, you have balanced a number of issues. Particularly, I am concerned about the plight of my farmers in the Deep South and north Alabama as well. Robert Aderholt might be able to be on the floor here tonight. We share all of north Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, in the South we have experienced in many areas an unprecedented drought. On the drought monitor, our target area in the Deep South has been designated as a D4 drought area. That is not a situation we have seen in many, many decades.

Consequently, the farmers are exhausting all of their resources. They are sacrificing generations of resources that have been built up. They need help. It is not just a matter of low-interest loans; it is a matter of a plan.

We know we have certain areas to look to, but the safety net is not entirely there. So as we struggle to find relief, I would like to discuss with the gentlewoman her commitment to working with me and my colleague on this very important issue.

Ms. DeLauro:I want to assure the gentleman that we appreciate the gentleman's hard work on this issue and understand and will be willing to work with you as we proceed.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

On this subject, the gentleman from Alabama and the gentlewoman from Connecticut and I have spoken about the fires we have had in south Georgia and the fires we have had in north Florida and Mr. Boyd's district to the tune of 580,000 acres. We have talked during the committee discussions about the possibility of obtaining some emergency conservation reserve program money for the private landowners who lost approximately $45 million, and then also the State fire departments and the municipalities that spent about $45 million fighting these fires. And I wanted to ask the gentlewoman if we were still on one accord working on our drought/fire situation as we have discussed with Mr. Cramer earlier.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Ms. DeLauro:As we talked about in the full committee with both Mr. Cramer and yourself, Mr. Kingston, and Mr. Aderholt, I talked about working with you on this issue. I commend you for bringing it to our attention.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. Lee: Mr. Chairman, first let me just say to the gentlelady from Connecticut, thank you so much for your hard work and dedication to moving our Nation forward in the area of agriculture, nutrition, health safety and all of the other issues that you tackle each and every day.

I come today to enter into a colloquy to raise the important issue regarding the lifetime ban on food stamp eligibility for formerly incarcerated persons who were convicted of drug offenses. This is a serious moral issue of concern to me. Quite frankly, this ought to be for each and every Member of Congress.

After they have served their time, Mr. Chairman, the formerly incarcerated reenter society looking to improve themselves and their lives. In these instances, however, the current policy prevents them access to food stamps. This just makes no sense. This absurd policy is the result of an overzealous congressional effort to appear tough on crime in 1996.

Once someone has paid their debt to society they should be able to have the resources that will help them put their lives together. I hope that we can work together to ensure that this inequity is addressed.

Ms. DeLauro:If the gentlewoman would yield, I assure the gentlewoman that we will work together on correcting the inequity.

The Acting chairman: The Committee will rise informally.

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois) assumed the chair.