---

The Committee resumed its sitting.

The Acting chairman: Who seeks time?

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?

The Acting chairman: The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 9 minutes. The gentleman from Georgia has 8 minutes.

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

Mr. Holt: Mr. Chairman, I commend the subcommittee and its chair for a good bill, and I wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Connecticut regarding funding for Community Food Projects and organic transitions research.

The 2007 farm bill that passed this House on Friday substantially increased the authorized funding for Community Food Projects, but it changed it from mandatory to discretionary. The CFP supports hundreds of innovative projects selected competitively, such as community kitchens, farmers markets, farm-to-school programs, in Connecticut among other States. I'm hoping that we can work toward finding discretionary funds for CFP.

Similarly, while the 2007 farm bill authorized a substantial increase in funding for various organic programs, funding for the organic transitions research program remained flat for the fiscal year. The market for organic food has reached $15 billion and is growing. Yet farmers need help making the transition from traditional to organic methods of farming, and without that help we will increasingly be dependent on overseas sources for organic products.

I ask the Chair to consider an increased level of funding for these programs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008, and to commend the Committee and Subcommittee leadership for their efforts on the bill, but also to express my concern about the lack of funding for community food projects and the lack of an increase in funding for the organic transitions research program for Fiscal Year 2008.

The 2007 Farm Bill that passed the House on Friday substantially increased the authorization for Community Food Projects (CFP) funding, from $5 million to $30 million annually. However, it also changed the funding from mandatory to discretionary, and funding for CFP was not included in the FY 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill that is before us today.

Hundreds of civic groups and associations throughout the country, as well as low-income consumers and farmers who produce for local and regional markets, benefit from this program. The program facilitates and builds the capacity of non-profit, community-based organizations so they can establish projects that meet the food needs of low-income populations; identify and address weakness in urban food systems, such as insufficient retail food stores in densely populations neighborhoods and poor access to healthy and fresh foods for schools; and promote comprehensive responses to food, farm, and nutrition issues by combining the resources of multiple sectors of the food system. From its inception in 1996 through 2007, CFP received mandatory funding under the Food Stamp Program and it has funded more than 240 innovative projects such as certified community kitchens, community supported agricultural operations, farmer's markets, agri-business incubators, farm-to-school programs and other projects.

I regret that the 2007 Farm Bill made CFP funding discretionary, if it remains so in the enacted bill, I hope that the Senate and House conferees will work to ensure that the prevailing level of funding for CFP will be provided in the enacted Fiscal Year 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

In addition, I wish to stress the urgency of increasing funding for organic transitions research in Fiscal Year 2008. While the 2007 Farm bill will substantially increase funding for various organic programs, funding for the organic transitions research program has again remained flat for Fiscal Year 2008. The market for organic food has reached $15 billion and, according to the Organic Trade Association, growth in sales of organic food has been 15 percent to 21 percent each year since 1998, compared with 2 percent to 4 percent for total food sales. Although there are now 10,000 organic farms in the United States, that is not enough to keep pace with demand. As a result, organic food suppliers must increasingly look for organic produce and other agricultural products from overseas locations.

The Organic Transitions Program is a highly competitive grants program established as part of the Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. This national program has been extremely important to the organic farming community in funding research to assist farmers in overcoming the barriers to transitioning their farm operations into organic production. Through grants awarded under the program, for example, a university in the West has been funded to research ecological soil community management for enhanced nutrient cycling; a Northeastern university has been funded to research reducing off-farm grain inputs on northeast organic dairy farms; and another--a university in a Great Plains state--to fund research into the transition to sustainability.

The demand for research on a wide variety of topics related to organic agriculture has been increasing in proportion to the surging growth in the demand for organic agricultural products, and the benefits of this research accrue not simply to organic and other farmers, but to the entire health-conscious population. Notwithstanding this surge in demand, funding for organic research to facilitate the transition into organic farming methods has been holding steady at just under $2 million for the last few fiscal years, which represents only one-hundredth of one percent of the size of the industry the research is intended to support.

The organic transitions program has been extremely important to the organic farming community in funding research to assist farmers in overcoming the barriers to transitioning their farm operations into organic production. My amendment to increase funding for this program to $5 million passed in the House last year, and I hope to see this level of funding included in the enacted Agriculture Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008.

Ms. DeLauro:If the gentleman would yield, these are both very, very worthy efforts, and I look forward to working with the gentleman on these programs.

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

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

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

Mr. Hare: Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage our respected chairwoman of the House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee in a colloquy to raise an issue of importance to a group of struggling workers in the almond industry. At issue is whether a company or cooperative should continue to be funded through the Market Access Program in light of being found guilty of labor violations here at home.

During a recent organizing drive, Blue Diamond Growers, a past recipient of these MAP funds, was found guilty by the National Labor Relations Board of more than 20 labor law violations, including firings. These were serious offenses.

Would the gentlewoman agree with me that the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to deny serious labor lawbreakers taxpayer funds which are distributed from the Market Access Program?

Ms. DeLauro:If the gentleman would yield, I, too, am concerned about treatment of workers at Blue Diamond Growers. I'm aware that the Secretary of Agriculture has the discretion to deny funding to a coop if it is in the best interest of the program. I further note that USDA regulations require that MAP participants adhere to the laws and customs abroad when they hire foreign workers to market their product. We'll work with you on this critical issue of real importance to our workers.

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

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

Mr. Hensarling: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to oppose this particular bill.

But before I do, I do want to say I think there are a number of good things, a number of good provisions in the bill. As one who has come to the floor on numerous occasions to attempt to champion fiscal responsibility and earmark reform, I do take note that under the chairwoman's leadership, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, that the number of earmarks are actually reduced in this bill. I consider that progress, and she should be commended for that.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I also note that the bill increases spending over last year by 5.9 percent, 5.9 percent. Now the people who are ultimately going to be called to pay for this bill, my guess is their salaries didn't go up 5.9 percent. And I know throughout this debate we always point out all the good things that are in the bill, and occasionally we have to point out this very inconvenient question, and that is, who's going to pay for it all? Who's going to pay for it all?

Right now, the Federal Government is still spending roughly $23,000 per family. It's one of the largest levels in our Nation's history and the largest since World War II. Although it's down, the deficit is still very high, and Member after Member comes to the floor to decry raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, but we know if we're going to grow the Federal budget, including this bill, way beyond the growth of the family budget, that you continue to raid the Social Security Trust Fund.

Members come to this floor to decry borrowing money from China to pay for the national debt, but, again, if we increase this spending 5.9 percent, it's exactly what this body is going to do.

Now, we've already had a robust debate over the farm bill last week, and I know that many provisions in this bill will help rural America, and as one who represents six rural east Texas counties, I'm glad for that. As somebody who comes from three generations of people who made their living from agriculture, I appreciate the challenges in agriculture.

But I might observe that if we were really, really serious about trying to help all the different people involved in agriculture, maybe what we'd do is end the death tax, something our friends from the other side of the aisle have fought every step of the way. Somebody works their entire life to put together a ranch or a farm, Uncle Sam can come in and take 55 percent. Maybe we would stand up for private property rights and let these people dispose of their livestock as they wish. Maybe we would actually work to open up more markets for all of our food and fiber. But, no, instead, we're going to increase spending 5.9 percent.

That's the wrong approach, Mr. Chairman. We should defeat this bill.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I yield to Congresswoman Kaptur for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. Kaptur asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. Kaptur: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this excellent bill to support food, fiber, fuel and forest production across this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chairwoman Ms. DeLauro, a longstanding colleague, for the excellent bill she has assembled. As the former ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, it has been a pleasure to see my colleague bring together our subcommittee through a form of collegiality unrivaled in this day of partisanship. This year's agriculture appropriations bill has been many years in coming, investing in the critical resources necessary to move agriculture and much of rural America fully into the 21st Century.

Ms. DeLauro has been a true leader and has produced a bill that should make all members of the Subcommittee proud. This bill invests in energy independence, secures our Nation's food supply, provides nutritional assistance for those living on the edge and link production from local small farmers with our urban consumers. The bill helps to grow America's economy through investing in rural America's potential for food, fiber, fuel and forest production.

Along with breakthrough investments in energy that will result from the recent farm bill, this measure moves America forward with a plan to use agriculture to solve our energy crisis. This legislation provides $350 million for biomass and renewable energy projects and $500 million to electrify America with wind power. This bill also provides $46 million for an innovative USDA grant program to help America transition to renewable energy sources, a program that has a long record of investing in the technologies of tomorrow. Agriculture holds the key if we are going to wean our Country from our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. This bill provides important incentive to transition us into the economy of tomorrow.

The Department of Agriculture dedicates almost \2/3\ of its budget to nutrition, yet, there have been scarce few attempts to link local producers with urban consumers. This bill confronts those challenges and directs the Department of Agriculture to connect local farmers with procurement from USDA major nutrition programs. In addition, this bill also provides $20 million for the senior farmers market nutrition program, an approach so wildly successful with the elderly and with farmers that it regularly has more requests than funds available. For our Nation's farmers markets, this bill also provides $1,000,000 for the Farmers' Market Promotion Program to establish, expand, and promote farmers' markets to connect local production to the local marketplace.

I am also pleased to rise in support of the $150 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program that this legislation provides. This bill provides enough money to expand CSFP in 5 new states, providing a food supplement for those who cannot make ends meet.

These agriculture nutrition programs bridge the gap between urban and rural, linking consumers with local producers--helping to provide fresh produce, vegetables and commodities to those with little access to nutritious foods.

On food safety, this bill confronts critical challenges to the integrity of our food system. This bill blocks implementation of a rule which would allow poultry importation from China and provides funds to implement the long awaited process of labeling the country of origin for food in our marketplace. It has taken many years to bring this issue to the forefront. But now it appears that Congress is finally giving consumers the tools for making effective decisions on what they choose to eat.

Before I close, I would like to advise the administration of language which clearly expresses the intent of Congress on the failed policy of Farm Service Agency closures. In both the Agriculture Appropriations bill and in the recently passed Farm Bill, the House of Representatives expressed its discontent with efforts to move forward with these closures. As there seems to be significant confusion on the intent of Congress on Farm Service Agency office closures, I respectfully refer the FSA Administration to two sections in recent legislation passed in the House of Representatives which clearly provide the intent of Congress on this issue.

In H.R. 2419 Section 11306 and Page 56 of the House Appropriations Report from H.R. 3161 clearly express the intent of Congress. As FSA moves forward with office closures in Ohio and across the Country, I strongly urge the administration to recognize the clear intent of the House Appropriations Committee, the House Agriculture Committee and the full House of Representatives.

In sum, this bill takes a major step forward for our Nation in opening new markets for farmers, makes major strides in conservation of our natural resources, attends to the food needs of all of America's needy families and children, moves rural America into renewable energy production, addresses challenges posed by serious environmental invasive species, and expands our food safety efforts. America must dedicate itself to food self sufficiency here at home and displace the rising levels of food imports. This bill invests in our Nation and our producers and consumers. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. DeLauro:Does the gentleman from Georgia have any additional speakers?

Mr. Kingston: I do, but they're not here quite yet.

Ms. DeLauro:We have no other speakers.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself 1 minute, and maybe somebody will percolate and maybe they won't.

I wanted to make a comment. Mr. Hensarling had noticed that the earmarks were down. I think this is a good thing. I think that our job is going to have to be to make sure the earmarks stay down as this thing goes through the process, but I also think we need to be concerned about what can happen that will add costs to this bill.

It's interesting we just had a bill that had about 50 people vote against it. It was a popular bill that created a number of new programs, and I was thinking that so often on appropriation bill there's always a standard 100 to 150 people who vote "no," and yet here was an authorizing bill, suddenly it's okay to spend money on an authorizing bill because it doesn't count. But on an appropriation bill, those same people who voted "yes" an hour ago will be voting "no" on the appropriation bill, except for Mr. Hensarling, who's pretty consistent on everything.

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

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers on our side except for myself in terms of closing. So, if the gentleman from Georgia would close, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I think I have one more in the wing. So let me again enlighten you with some of my wisdom, if I may yield myself 1 minute.

One of the amendments that we have been working on in this bill is the insistence that those who sell or contract to the Federal Government use Social Security verification. There's a program called the Basic Pilot Program, and we have that amendment in the bill.

I think it's important people realize that the idea is that if you're doing business with the Federal Government you should be in compliance with the law of the land, which is to have legal employees; and what this does is requires those vendors and sales corporations and contractors and subcontractors to show that they are in compliance by having Social Security verification.

I'm excited about this amendment. I think it's very important. President Clinton actually did the same thing February 13, 1996, by executive order; and I am hoping that if there's some problems with this amendment that as this bill moves through the process we may need to tinker with it a little bit but that we can keep the gist of it.

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers around, and I yield back my time.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to say I think we need to be very excited about this bill. We set out to accomplish several goals, including strengthening rural America, having the opportunity to protect our public health, improving nutrition for more Americans, and we tried to be concerned particularly about rural areas. But we're looking at 40 percent of the children in rural areas who are dependent on food stamps. We look to transforming our energy future to $1.2 billion in loans and grants, particularly in rural areas, supporting conservation, investing in research, which keeps our agriculture on the cutting edge and, finally, enhancing oversight.

Most importantly, what I believe about this bill is it brings our Nation back to its most fundamental principles and that is the strength of our communities. We have an obligation to keep these things and to get them right, and I'm assuming we will take that responsibility today.

Ms. Woolsey: Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk about the importance of purchasing domestically grown and processed foods for school meals.

We all heard the recent reports about toxic products coming from China--everything from food to toothpaste. The last thing we want is to have any of that making its way into our children's school lunches.

Already, Congress has approved legislation encouraging schools to "Buy American." This not only supports our farm communities, but also puts locally-grown products on our students' lunch trays.

It serves our farmers and producers as much as it serves schoolchildren throughout this country.

I am concerned, however, that the Department of Agriculture has failed to follow directives given to them by Congress.

This serious problem surfaced again recently. Earlier this year, at a convention hosted by the School Nutrition Association, one prominent school food display marketed products that were not only produced overseas but also processed overseas.

Nancy Montanez Johner, the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, and several other Government officials were there.

I hope now that they have seen this problem for themselves, the Department will move quickly to take immediate action to correct it, and stop purchasing foreign agricultural products for use in the School Lunch Program.

The Department should be promoting products from our U.S. farmers and producers. The Buy American provision should not be some secret Government provision buried low in the small type.

Chairwoman Delauro assured me she would work with me on this important issue.

Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 3161, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, and discuss the great need for cattle research in this bill.

The Southeast, particularly the gulf coast, is home to almost 40 percent of the Nation's beef cow herd.

Cattle production in this region has unique problems that come from heat, humidity, disease, and the environment.

The USDA is currently conducting research on major issues affecting beef cattle at the Subtropical Agricultural Research Station in Florida.

However, to keep our cattle supply abundant and healthy, there is a growing need to increase the scope of the research and find creative solutions to the unique subtropical environment stressors that are affecting herd production.

I recognize that there are many important programs like this one throughout the Nation, but I urge the Appropriations Committee to work with me to ensure adequate funding for this vital program in the future.

Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, funding for the Food and Drug Administration is incredibly important--FDA oversees products that make up one quarter of all consumer spending in the U.S. and it is vital to protecting the public health.

But for all that we ask of this agency, I am concerned that we do not give FDA what it needs to do its job. For years, FDA has been underfunded--its costs have risen dramatically while its appropriations have barely increased. In fact, the number of staff at FDA has actually dropped since 2003, despite rapidly expanding burdens.

I know that the chairwoman is a staunch defender of food safety, and I share her concerns. I have my own doubts about whether this administration is doing all that it can to protect our food supply. But I also know that FDA cannot keep our food safe if it doesn't have the people to make decisions or conduct inspections. Because FDA's food programs do not involve user fees, unlike the drug and device programs, food safety is one of the most neglected functions at the agency. Partly as a result of this shortage, FDA's ability to ensure a safe food supply is severely limited. The effect of this is simple: Less money for food safety means fewer staff working to protect the food supply; fewer inspections; a diminished ability to respond to outbreaks, and--most important--a limited ability to develop policies that can prevent future catastrophes.

FDA is facing a shortfall of crisis proportions, and I believe that greater funding is imperative. We ask a great deal of FDA, and we need to support it with the funds necessary to do its job. I know that the chairwoman has taken the first step in this bill to reverse the trend of shortchanging FDA. But I think we can do more to begin restoring FDA to its proper role. That will require a multi-year commitment to greater funding.

I recognize that Chairwoman DeLauro is concerned about existing problems at FDA and I share her concerns. My committee's investigations of FDA have identified significant problems at FDA, some of which have nothing to do with funding. For example, we've seen political interference in scientific decisionmaking and a failure to conduct vigorous enforcement of the law. Both of these interfere with FDA's ability to protect the public health, and they cannot be fixed with money alone. But these issues are matched with problems that are purely a matter of resources.

I think we need to provide greater resources for FDA at the same time that we provide greater oversight.

Currently, the Senate bill appropriates $1.75 billion to FDA, with $522 million for food safety. The House bill appropriates roughly $57 million less than that overall, and $48 million less for foods. I think the Senate level of funding is a good start to restoring FDA to its proper level of funding. I urge the chairwoman to seek the highest level of funding that is feasible in conference.

As I said, I think this will be a multi-year effort, and I would like to work with the chairwoman on restoring FDA in the years ahead with even greater funding.

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

The Acting chairman: All time for general debate has expired.

Pursuant to House Resolution 599, no further amendment shall be in order except the amendments printed in part B of House Report 110-290. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member designated in the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sessions

The Acting chairman: It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part B of House Report 110-290.

Mr. Sessions: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sessions: Page 3, line 9, strike ": Provided" and all that follows through "budgets for contracting out".

The Acting chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Sessions: Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike language included on page 3 of this legislation, which would have the same anti- competitive effect as language already included in almost every other one of the Democrat majority's appropriations bills, by preventing funds from being spent to conduct public-private competitions.

In this case, it would prevent funds from being used to allow the private sector to compete against the government for jobs by limiting the Agriculture Department's Chief Financial Officer's ability to spend money on this taxpayer-friendly activity until he provides a redundant report back to Congress on the Department's contracting policies.

While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to public sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on their core missions when Congress takes the opportunity to use competition and takes that ability away from them.

In 2006, Federal agencies competed only 1.7 percent of their commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for services is expected to generate savings of over $1.3 billion over the next 10 years by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies.

Competitions, completed since 2003, are expected to produce almost $7 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every $1 spent on the competition with an annualized savings of more than $1 billion.

This provision is obviously needed to stall public, private competitions for an entire fiscal year, rather than allowing a proven process to work, as it was intended, and it would harm taxpayers by denying the Department of Agriculture the ability to focus its scarce resources and expertise on core missions.

This concerted effort to prevent competition sourcing from taking place at the Department of Agriculture comes just a week after the House passed an agriculture bill that goes way beyond the Federal scope and strips States of their ability to use competitive sourcing to improve their own food stamp programs, demonstrating that the Democrat leadership is hearing clearly from labor bosses that the Agriculture appropriations bill represents yet another good opportunity to increase their power at the expense of taxpayers and good government.

In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, Congress should be looking to use all the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of savings that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of support for this amendment from the Fair Competition Coalition.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense taxpayer first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public union sector bosses by keeping cost savings competition alive to the government.

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

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

The Acting chairman: The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. DeLauro:I rise in opposition to the Sessions amendment, and I am astounded that the gentleman is taking the time of the House with this amendment.

The only requirement in the language that the amendment seeks to strike is for the USDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide a report on contracting out policies and expenditures, to the appropriations and the Oversight and Government Reform committees.

This is a bipartisan provision, included when the gentleman's party was in the majority and a long-standing provision that was first part of the Agriculture bill for fiscal year 2004.

If the gentleman's aim is to allow USDA to continue contracting out, this amendment is not the way to accomplish that. The language that we have included in the bill does not prevent USDA from carrying out the outsourcing of Federal work. What it simply aims to do is to establish a much-needed oversight on the related costs to contracting out.

Regardless of how one feels about the role of the Federal workforce and the outsourcing of Federal jobs to private contractors, why would we object to transparency in this area? We are talking about a report.

Now, after the comment about the report being burdensome, this is the report, it is hardly burdensome, four paragraphs and a chart. It really defies the imagination.

The fact is that we need to exercise our responsibility. We need to increase oversight in this area. We all know that the administration's guidelines for public-private competitions, OMB circular 876, has long favored contractors and stacked the deck against Federal employees.

The Bush White House has pushed privatization so much that the Los Angeles Times reported earlier this month that there are more private contractors in Iraq than U.S. troops. More than 180,000 civilians, including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis, are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense Department figures obtained by the newspaper.

I believe we should know the costs associated with contracting-out policies. That is all, again, that is all the language in the report is about, and I cannot understand why the gentleman objects to a report.

I urge a "no" vote on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Sessions: Mr. Chairman, may I ask what time remains.

The Acting chairman: The gentleman from Texas has 90 seconds.

Mr. Sessions: Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Conaway: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that was not made in order that would have allowed us to have a conversation about States' rights.

There is a provision in the bill that severely rejects States' abilities to run their food stamp programs in ways they see fit in ways that are economical, provide benefits to beneficiaries in a respectful way; and it was not made in order.

I think States' rights and a conversation about that is a worthy topic this evening to have this discussion. It's unfortunate that a select few on the Rules Committee, on the majority, are afraid of that conversation.

I don't know if I would have won it or lost it. I think every time we trample on a State's rights to do things, the 10th amendment to the Constitution, that that's worthy of a conversation for this floor.

I am flabbergasted that the majority on the Rules Committee were afraid of having that conversation tonight. So let me add my voice to the long line of Members on this side who whined about being cut out of this process.

This is a legitimate issue, the right of a State to run its business the way that it sees fit, and if it does things correctly, and we develop new ways to do things, allowing other States to adopt those same models. This bill prohibits that from happening. This tramples on States' rights. It's an issue we should have had a full debate on, at least 5 minutes on each side, but we are not going to because of some fear on the other side.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

The Acting chairman: The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 2 minutes.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, again, let me just notify the gentleman who just spoke, there is truly nothing in our bill that deals with the issue of privatization or with States and privatization. I think the gentleman is confused with the Agriculture appropriations bill and with the farm bill which occurred a week ago. That was addressed in the farm bill. There is nothing in our bill that deals with the issue of privatization.

I think it's again worth noting that all we are speaking about here is a report. What I can't understand is why we would not want to know about the cost of contracting out and what is happening. That is what our responsibility is, to ask questions. We have oversight responsibility of these Federal agencies.

As I pointed out before, you have 21,000 Americans, 43,000 foreign contractors, 118,000 Iraqis all employed in Iraq by U.S. tax dollars, according to the most recent government data. You have got the massive privatization of military jobs which have been taken up with construction, security, weapons systems, maintenance, and, in fact, we can't even keep track of that effort. We have a responsibility, whether it is Department of Agriculture, whether it is Department of Defense, whatever Department it is.

If we want to hold the jobs that we have, we ought to be asking questions about how taxpayers' dollars are being spent by these agencies. And it's fiscally responsible, and it is what we are charged with doing. You may choose not to know what they are doing because you concur that that's the thing to do, to replace Federal employees and their jobs. You can hold that view, but let's get the information. Let's get a mere report to do it.

I ask for a "no" vote on this amendment.

The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. Sessions: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.

It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in part B of House Report 110-290.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

The Acting chairman: It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in part B of House Report 110-290.

Mr. Hensarling: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hensarling:

Page 33, line 16, after the first dollar amount, insert "(reduced by $6,287,000)".

Page 33, line 17, after the first dollar amount, insert "(reduced by $6,287,000)".

The Acting chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Hensarling: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that may be modest in the dollars involved, but I believe it is very, very important in the principle that underlies it.

The amendment would simply level fund the Community Facilities Grant Program, level funding. It would spend the same amount of money next year that we have spent last year.

Instead, what we see in this appropriations bill is that the amount is going to be increased 37 percent, 37 percent. Now, again, the people who are going to be expected to pay for this, I seriously doubt that they saw their paychecks increase 37 percent.

Now, I have no doubt that good things can be done with this money. Those who want to spend more of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars always have some very good rationale for doing it.

But the question is, any time you create a Federal investment, by definition you are going to be creating a family divestment, because somebody has to pay for this. In this particular case, when it is the Heritage Foundation, as is noted, by at least one count we have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies. I defy any human being to tell me what they do. The Office of Management and Budget has noted in their budget report: "This program is redundant with other Federal programs at the Department of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development."

Now, my reading of this bill, and I would certainly let the chairman correct me if I am wrong, I don't think one single program is terminated in this particular bill. Everybody is going to get more money except the people who have to pay for it, and that is the poor beleaguered taxpayer.

I have a lot of respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, and we serve on the House Budget Committee together. I know she hears the same testimony that I hear. That testimony is this Nation has a huge spending problem.

Already with the government that we have, we are on track to double taxes on the next generation or, for all intents and purposes, there will be no Federal Government in the next generation, save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

I know it's a problem that doesn't manifest itself tomorrow, but how long is this Congress going to kick the can down the road? I mean, we have heard the testimony. Our Comptroller General has said that the rising cost of government is "a fiscal cancer" that threatens "catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America."

Yet here we have a bill increasing one program 37 percent and terminating none, none. I mean, where does it all stop?

Now, I know the subject matter is important. I have the honor and privilege of representing a fair amount of rural Texas in the Fifth Congressional District, but those are the same people who are being asked to pay for this. They are the ones who are going to be subjected to the single largest tax increase in American history of roughly $3,000 per family.

So here we have out of 10,000 Federal programs one that OMB has said is redundant, does the same thing that other programs do. Unfortunately, the committee's response is to increase it 37 percent.

Now, maybe the savings is modest to the taxpayer, but the principle is huge, because ultimately the Federal budget cannot grow beyond the family's budget ability to pay for it. There is a very important precedent that could be set here. Let's take one program and tell the American people who have to pay for it, know what, it can do with the same amount of money last year that it had this year. Let's protect, let's protect the family budget from the Federal budget. Let's adopt this amendment.

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

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

The Acting chairman: The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. DeLauro:I yield myself 2 minutes.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment from the gentleman from Texas to cut the Community Facility grant program.

These are grants, please understand, that assist in the development of central community facilities in rural areas and towns of up to 20,000 in population. These are small communities, low populations, low income, and they receive a higher percentage of the grants.

What are they used for? To construct, enlarge, improve community facilities. What are those community facilities? It is about health care, public safety, community, public services. When you have seen what has happened to rural America with the loss of jobs, globalization, you have families and livelihoods which have become marginal, you also see the fabric of the community and those institutions cannot be sustained, and these things go away. And so that the local community has an opportunity to create some of these services that are necessary, it is vital to small communities, to impoverished communities. And they build fire stations, hospitals. They purchase ambulances and other critical facilities.

And if you don't deal with the health care where they have limited availability and accessibility, we are going to continually have a shortage of health care providers in rural America, and that is a disaster.

Major investments in transportation, telecommunications, and other critical services are necessary in many rural areas, and local tax bases are unable to support necessary investments and improvements. And we know what the topography is in rural areas with the remoteness from metropolitan areas adds only to their difficulties.

This is essential, this program, to really help communities get a critical infrastructure. This is building infrastructure in rural America, which every report, every study says we need to do in order to reenergize and revitalize rural America. I urge you not to vote for this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Hensarling: Mr. Chairman, let's hear from some of the people in rural America whose health care is going to be impacted by this bill.

More spending fuels more taxes. Let's hear it from the McConathy family in Mineola, Texas. "We are retired and on a fixed income. If our taxes are raised almost $3,000, we will not be able to afford the medication we need."

Mr. Chairman, that is coming from the people who have to pay the taxes to help pay for the 37 percent increase in this program that the Democrat majority wants. Maybe they can spend their money better for their health care; and, because of that, I urge adoption of this amendment.

The Acting chairman: The gentleman's time has expired.

Ms. DeLauro:I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Farr: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Let's be practical. This is about rural America. These are about towns that are under 20,000 people who have come together and decided they want to build community facilities, community centers so people can get together and solve problems. They have to put up the money for their match, and they are asking for a competitive grant program, means that their ideas have got to compete with other ideas in small towns around the Nation.

This gentleman gets up and berates the fact that he is taking all this time to cut this money out of rural America for something that they want. You go back and tell your taxpayers that, while we are sitting here, we spent $13,732,620 in Iraq in one hour, in one hour. And they are building community centers over there for the Iraqis. We can build community centers for our communities in the United States.

I oppose this amendment.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting chairman: Members are advised to address their remarks to the Chair.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I yield 1¼minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

(Mr. Jackson of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Jackson of Illinois: Let me rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from Texas's amendment, and I am hoping that the gentleman might engage me in a brief question.

These grants assist in the development of essential community facilities in rural towns of up to 20,000 in population. We talked about them in great detail in a number of hearings on the Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee, and witness after witness suggested that these Federal funds, in conjunction with local funds, made it possible for them to advance the idea of health conversations and broader conversations about fire stations and hospitals and purchasing ambulances and other critical community facilities.

I was going to ask the gentleman if he wouldn't mind engaging in just a brief colloquy with me. A brief question: Does the gentleman support the President's budget?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Hensarling: No, I do not.

Mr. Jackson of Illinois: The gentleman does not support the President's budget. Well, that is important, because let us be clear that the gentleman's amendment is proposing $16.8 million more than the President is proposing in this program.

The President has zeroed this program out. The committee sought to increase the number in this program. And if the gentleman's amendment returns it to the 2007 level, the 2007 level is $16.8 million more.

I encourage you to vote against the Hensarling amendment and support the Community Facilities program.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying that, again, this is about building infrastructure in rural America.

The facts are that the demographics are changing in rural America. We are looking at communities that have lost jobs, that have lost because they can't sustain them, community institutions. These community facility grants allow for these communities to access resources in order to create the kinds of services that they and their families need in order to be able to survive.

The demographics are going in one direction, and the administration will take away all of the opportunities, as with the gentleman from Texas, for these communities to be able to thrive. It is wrong, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. Hensarling: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

The Acting chairman: It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in part B of House Report 110-290.

Mr. Hensarling: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hensarling: Page 48, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert "(reduced by $8,910,000)".

The Acting chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Hensarling: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is, frankly, identical to the purpose of the previous amendment; and that is, let's show the American people that, out of these 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies, that maybe one of them, one of them can do with the same amount of money next year that they had last year.

Instead, this particular program that is involved, the Broadband Grants program, in H.R. 3061, spending on the program has doubled, increased 100 percent. Again, are people who are expecting to pay for this, did their family income go up 100 percent?

And I have listened carefully to several of the previous speakers, and I will be measuring my comments. But, Mr. Chairman, I grew up working on my father's family farm. I am the son of a farmer. I am the grandson of a farmer. I am the great grandson of a farmer. I grew up in rural communities in Texas like Slaton and Naples and Lingelville. So, Mr. Chairman, I don't take a back seat to anybody to my commitment to rural America. It is where my roots are.

And so maybe some of the people on the other side of the aisle, maybe their constituents are a little different than mine. Maybe the people they grew up with and their surroundings and circumstances were different than mine. But I spend a lot of time talking to people in rural Texas in the counties that I have the pleasure of representing, those counties that help comprise the Fifth District of Texas. And they would love to all have broadband. They would love to have it.

And do you know what else they love even more? They would love not to have the single largest tax increase in American history imposed upon them. They would love to get rid of the death tax that can take away the family farm or ranch it took generations to build. That is what they would love. They would love the ability to be able to dispose of their private property, as they struggle to make their family farms and ranches successful. Each one of these has been opposed by the Democrat majority. That is what rural America needs. That is what people on the farm and ranch need.

Now, again, the goal of helping bring broadband to rural America is a very worthy goal. It is a very lofty goal. And I am sure in just a couple minutes we will hear how the entire rural America will come to a complete halt if we don't have any Federal, a Federal Government program dealing with broadband, notwithstanding the fact that the Office of Management and Budget has already noted, "This program is duplicative of the Broadband Loan Program authorized in the 2002 farm bill. The areas eligible for grants are also eligible for low-cost broadband loans through the RUS."

The program is already there. So what are we doing spending double on this program, being completely oblivious to the people who have to pay for it?

Again, there is great, great focus on the benefits of this program. But where is the focus on the cost?

Again, I know the gentlelady from Connecticut hears the same testimony I do in the Budget Committee, but already we are on track, we are on track to double taxes for the next generation. The Comptroller General has said that we are on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. And so what do we do? We don't even sit idly by. We double spending on this particular program, completely oblivious to those who have to pay for it, especially future generations.

If there is anybody who qualifies today for the least of these in the political process, it is future generations. And because of that, although the principle is large, the sum is modest, I encourage adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

The Acting chairman: The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise again in strong opposition to this amendment from the gentleman from Texas. This would cut in half the Broadband Community Connect program.

This funding level will help. First, let me quote to you from something called the Carsey Institute Report, Rural America and the Twenty-First Century Prospectus from the Field. And this is the quote. This is June, 2007: "Expanded broadband telecommunication is essential, is essential, if rural areas are to be competitive in a global economy."

I can't believe the gentleman would want to move us backward and not forward in terms of allowing our communities to move into the 21st century and to be able to compete globally. This funding level helps more families in rural communities get the access that they need to technology. This helps to increase business, employment opportunities, greater access to educational and lifesaving medical services.

This is not a partisan issue. We all support providing increased broadband services to rural America. Communities that are selected to receive grant funds do not currently have access to broadband connectivity for central services of police, fire protection, hospitals, local governments, libraries, schools. In return, what the communities do, because it is a partnership, they provide a community center where you have at least 10 computers to be available to the public with hours set for instruction and on the use of the Internet.

This is about economic opportunity and revitalization and the potential for improving the quality of life for residents in these areas that need to have this infrastructure. The technology is going to be the key to the ability of rural businesses and rural economies.

Mr. Hensarling: Mr. Chairman, number one, with all due respect to the gentlelady from Connecticut, this amendment would cut nothing. It would level fund the program from one year to the next.

And, again, let's hear the voice of rural America. Let's hear from the Peterson family in Van who is going to have to pay for this.

"I am a widow, a full-time college student, single mother of a growing teen boy. This amount would be impossible to squeeze out. The monthly amount is more than half of my monthly vehicle installment and more than a third of my monthly housing expense and exceeds my already bare bones monthly grocery budget."

Let's adopt the amendment.

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

Mr. Jackson of Illinois: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let's put a face on this program. In Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, no company had invested in providing broadband delivery to the residents until a company called Bitsmart applied for a USDA Community Connect Grant. 770 people live in Horseshoe Bend, Idaho. Now, Bitsmart has established wireless Internet accessibility and availability, an integrated system connecting law enforcement, health care providers and school and government offices.

The USDA Rural Development mission is to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of life for rural residents. To level fund a program that connects rural Americans to the rest of our country would be a moral disgrace. We are under an obligation in this Congress to bring rural communities, where large corporations and medium-sized corporations do not invest in them, into the information age and make them part of our more perfect union.

I encourage my colleagues to reject the Hensarling amendment.

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

Mr. Farr: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I hope the author will tell that mother in rural America that his money cuts grants to rural areas, to her local schools in rural areas, to her hospitals and to her rural businesses who all want to get access to broadband. They're leaving the rural area because they don't have this.

Also tell that mother that the same amount of money is being spent in Iraq in 45 minutes, in 45 minutes. In just the time of this debate, we're spending more money than this amendment cuts in Iraq to build those things that he wants to cut away from rural America.

This amendment is wrong. I oppose it.

Ms. DeLauro:How much time, Mr. Chairman, remains on our side?

The Acting chairman: The gentlelady from Connecticut has 1 minute. The gentleman from Texas' time has expired.

Mr. Jackson of Illinois: I was hoping the gentlelady from Connecticut would yield for just a brief question.

Would the gentlelady care to share with the committee what the President's proposal was for this particular program in this particular budget?

Ms. DeLauro:The President's proposal was to zero out the broadband program, telemedicine, which is really quite extraordinary in an age of technology, an age of trying to bring our communities together and particularly rural America. One of the things that we do in this bill is we're examining why we have so many underserved areas in terms of rural America. And we're going to request that the Inspector General do a study of why money isn't going into the underserved areas.

I don't think that there's an individual in this House, on either side of the aisle, that doesn't believe that that is the key to the future; the Internet, broadband, telecommunications. It's for urban areas. It is particularly for the rural areas which are underserved. Again, these are communities population under 20,000. Libraries, educational centers.

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

Ms. DeLauro:I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. Hensarling: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Kingston

The Acting chairman: It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in part B of House Report 110-290.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Kingston:

Strike section 726.

The Acting chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

The Acting chairman: Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan will control the 5 minutes.

There was no objection.

Mr. Rogers of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to cut right to the chase. We have so little time.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

You know, the New York Times highlighted in an investigation in May, the global and deadly epidemic of counterfeit drugs. Counterfeit product diethylene glycol, an industrial solvent ingredient in antifreeze, found its way into cough medicine on our shelves. It was traced from Panama, through Spain, from China, all countries that would be permitted under this bill.

We must remember how dangerous this is. And I understand everybody's intention to try to lower drug prices to our seniors. That's critically important.

But what we are doing is throwing open the gates to every counterfeiter in the world, and the top five countries, China, Russia, India, Colombia, the other countries who are trying purposely to adulterate our prescription drug safety in the United States of America.

Seventy years ago the same diethylene glycol killed more than 100 people in the United States. That's why we have the FDA today. And guess what? It just happened again in May.

This is the wrong time to throw away all of those institutional years that we've developed to protect our drug supply in America. And I want to quickly show, and I apologize for the speed here, Mr. Chairman, but we have so little time on such an issue that is so important to the United States of America.

This is one of the facilities that was making drugs in China. How many of you would ask your mother to take a drug coming out of this facility? None of you. None of you would do it. And it's wrong for us just to throw it open for a political gamesmanship to say we're going to try to lower drugs. It's dangerous.

Aricept, to treat Alzheimer's disease, was found to be counterfeit. And it looks unbelievably uncanny like the real thing. Let me show you real quickly. Look, you cannot tell the difference. Are you going to ask an Alzheimer's patient to tell the difference between the real and the counterfeit?

And guess what? This isn't 70 years ago. This is today. They're trying to do this today. I cannot tell you how dangerous this is. We should take the opportunity to undo this and go back and use common sense.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLauro:I yield 1½minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mrs. Emerson: Mr. Chairman, first of all, because we are under such tight time constraints, I might add, and I understand the points that the gentleman from Michigan was making.

But of course, let me also mention, and I'll submit this for the Record, that the foreign facilities inspected for approval by the Food and Drug Administration include those from 65 countries, and I'll name just a couple: China, Macau, Niue. I don't know if anybody here has heard of the country Niue. I'm embarrassed to say that I don't know where Niue is. Russia, India and several other countries that at one point in time may have been questionable.

I also want to point out to the gentleman, and I know that he must be aware, that 40 percent of all drugs that come into this country that we take on an everyday basis, whether it is cholesterol medicine like Lipitor, which is made in Ireland, or Prilosec, which is made in Sweden, all of these drugs are already imported into the United States. So how do we really know if these drugs that are sold by the brand name manufacturers actually have ingredients that are safe?

And I would also say to my colleague from Michigan, who is very, very lucky, because Michigan is right next to Canada, and your senior citizens are able to cross that border there at Detroit, go into Canada, and they can buy their prescription drugs for 40 percent less, 50 percent less than American citizens can.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Foreign Facilities inspected for approval by FDA (65 countries)

Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bahamas, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Macau, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, Niue, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Signapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, United Kingdom.

Mr. Rogers of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I yield 1½minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), who knows that 30 percent of the prescription medicines in the areas of Latin America, Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are counterfeit, all of which would be permitted under this bill.

Mr. Rothman: Mr. Chairman, I support the Kingston amendment which upholds existing law which allows for the importation of a personal-use quantity, a 90-day supply of a prescription medicine from Canada.

What the Kingston amendment will not allow, though, is the bulk importation of pharmaceuticals for the use of so-called Internet pharmacies. Internet pharmacies, you don't know where they're getting their drugs. They could come and have come from every single continent, from nearly every continent on the planet.

If we want to reduce the price of drugs, we ought to encourage the drug companies to eliminate or minimize the price disparity between what our citizens pay in the United States and what people around the world pay for their prescription drugs. And, Mr. Chairman, we ought to reform Medicare part D.

The Republican plan would subsidize the insurance industry and subsidize the drug companies instead of using that money for cheaper drugs for our own people in the United States.

But the Kingston amendment will assure a personal supply that you can get from Canada, but will also assure a safe product comes to the people of the United States when they get their prescription drugs.

Mr. Rogers of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I reserve.

Ms. DeLauro:I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mrs. Emerson: I would just like to point out, 1, as I was starting to say, that our senior citizens, even with Medicare part D, cannot afford their prescription drugs. There is no competition in the marketplace.

And it was very interesting, today I ran into one of the pharmaceutical lobbyists who happened to tell me, Oh, my gosh, the Kingston amendment is getting us all engaged again in this issue, and, you know, we're going to pull out all the stops.

And I dare say that I would prefer to stand up for my constituents in Missouri as opposed to the pharmaceutical companies keeping competition and low prices out of this country.

Mr. Rogers of Michigan: It's unfortunate the gentlelady would take personal comments, when you know that there are Americans and a Canadian who was just killed using counterfeit drugs, very unfortunate indeed.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a good friend and a great friend of the American people, Mr. Dingell.

(Mr. Dingell asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Dingell:Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment and it should be adopted.

How many of my colleagues saw television last Sunday night when they saw the hundreds of thousands of fraudulent counterfeit pharmaceuticals, pills that could be imported into the United States from China, and saw Chinese entrepreneurs bragging about how many of these they could make available?

You can kill people with bad drugs two ways. One is by giving them adulterated, contaminated unsafe drugs. That'll kill them. The other way is to give them drugs that don't do anything. And these drugs, although cleverly marked and wonderfully packaged, don't do anything.

How many of you want the blood on your hands of having people killed by allowing drugs to be imported which are not safe or which do not do what they're supposed to do?

How many people here want to see to it that your constituents are getting drugs which won't deal with hypertension or which won't address the problems of cancer or which won't deal with other life-threatening drugs, with life-threatening conditions?

I urge you to support this amendment.

I commend my good friend from Michigan for his leadership, and I say thank you. The Nation owes you a debt.

The Nation is watching this Congress to see whether or not this Congress is going to protect the people or whether we're going to expose them to great risk. I challenge my colleagues to do what is right.

Ms. DeLauro:I yield 1½minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. Kaptur: Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment and to allow the importation of safe prescription drugs into our country.

You know, the pharmaceutical companies are making record profits. I represent a district along the Canadian border. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of sick people from our district have to drive up over that bridge, the Windsor Bridge, up into Canada in order to take care of their mentally ill kids. The senior citizens that can't afford drugs, or they've been thrown out of a job, to try to keep house and home together as they have to purchase various pharmaceutical products.

What do we have an FDA for if it isn't for certification? That's what we want them to do. These drugs are being bought from certified pharmacies.

You know, the seniors that come through the supermarket aisle in the place where I shop back home, they're choosing between food and medicine. What kind of a choice is that, really?

You don't have to buy unsafe drugs. You can buy safe drugs. We want the FDA to regulate. I'd prefer to see drug prices reach an affordable level in our Nation and to make sure that all of our people have full prescription drug coverage under Medicare, and that's the direction we ought to move, including drug coverage under our insurance programs.

But there's absolutely no reason to buy the red herring that if you buy pharmaceuticals in Canada they're not safe. There isn't a single person in my district that has ever gotten sick, because they go to certified pharmacies.

The tragedy is they cannot afford those drugs in this country.

And I want to compliment Congresswoman DeLauro, who has fought on this, Congresswoman Emerson, who has fought on this. It seems like we keep fighting this because the pharmaceutical companies keep fighting us to do what's right for this country.

Mr. Rogers of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

The Acting chairman: Thirty seconds.

Mr. Rogers of Michigan: I yield the remaining time, as I remind the gentlelady from Ohio that this bill would actually eliminate the enforcement of the FDA of all the rules, which makes it so dangerous. And nobody knows more about the dangers of counterfeit imported drugs than the gentleman from New Jersey. I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kingston amendment.

I have got short time, but earlier this year the Energy and Commerce Committee had a hearing on drug safety, and my good friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), summarized the problem with drug importation by referencing a New York Times article just that week. She said, "Counterfeit drugs made in China were exported to Panama for sale, and they included a deadly toxin … 365 families reported deaths as a result of the tainted cough syrup and fever medication."

My friend, Ms. DeGette, continued: "Mr. Chairman, the dangers from counterfeit and contaminated drugs are frighteningly real, even under the current construct. Permitting reimportation would significantly increase the risk of counterfeit, misbranded, and adulterated drugs that would end up in my constituents' homes."

I agree with my friend from the other side of the aisle, the dangers related to drug importation the FDA needs the authority to prevent counterfeit medicines from coming into America.

I urge my colleaues to support the Kingston Amendment.

Ms. DeLauro:How much time is left, Mr. Chairman?

The Acting chairman: The gentleman from Michigan has no time left. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 90 seconds.

Ms. DeLauro:I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Kingston: I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

I want to say this is a major policy change. That is why we are here debating it. It is unfortunate we don't have a full Chamber. But the reason that I offer this amendment is because I think we should have the floor engaged on it, and we will have that opportunity tonight.

Number two, people are doing this. There are 1 to 3 million people who are buying Canadian drugs and drugs from other countries right now. If we are interested in safety, we will find a way to make this safe. This is a country that just invented the iFone, the iPod, the navigation system, and all this stuff. We can figure out how to make these drugs safe.

Finally, as Ms. Kaptur said, these are certified drugs made in the United States in most cases.

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

I reiterate: These are FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved facilities. Let's set the record straight.

The Congress has been misled by the pharmaceutical industry. They have stood in the way of keeping safe and affordable prescription drugs out of the hands of consumers. They are now misleading us in this campaign to scare the American public on the issue of drug importation. Prescription drugs can be imported into the United States safely. It has been done for decades. Reimportation needs to stay on the table. It needs to stay in this bill.

The drug companies have repeatedly demonstrated the influence that they have gained within the FDA and the Bush administration. It is time for the Congress and the American people to demonstrate that we are not easily swayed. Oppose this amendment.

Ms. Eshoo: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kingston Amendment which would strike language from the bill to implement a fundamental change to the FDA's drug safety laws by allowing the commercial re- importation of prescription drugs.

The bill is a vast expansion of current policy. Besides allowing individuals to bring drugs across the border for their personal use, the bill would allow pharmacists and wholesalers to re-import prescription drugs for sale in the U.S.

Let me address the myth that allowing prescription drug reimportation will dramatically reduce drug costs for Americans. This has never been proven and according to a 2004 report by the Department of Health and Human Services, estimated savings to individuals would be less than 1 percent. I'm concerned about taking serious risks to patient health for little or no gain.

It's important to remember why prescription drug re-importation was banned in the first place. Nearly 20 years ago, Congressman John Dingell introduced and passed the Prescription Drug Marketing Act. He did so on the heels of a multi-year investigation by the Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee's investigation uncovered a string of abuses that were harming patients, including widespread importation of counterfeit drugs, drugs that had been tampered with and drugs that were incorrectly dosed or wrongly labeled. It showed that wholesalers who brought drugs back into the U.S. had no idea where the drugs originated, who they were buying them from and whether they were stored properly.

These problems have only worsened in the years that have followed. In 2003 the FDA and Customs Service found that 88 percent of imported medicines entering the U.S. were unapproved or otherwise illegal.

Mr. Chairman, the FDA is already a beleaguered and underfunded agency, a fact which was borne out by the recent incidents involving the importation of dangerous food and drug products from abroad, including tainted dog food and toothpaste, and Congress continues to struggle to find revenue for this vital agency. To require the FDA to take on the additional mandate of policing imported drugs will only place additional burdens on an already strapped agency.

I understand the concern of many of my colleagues about the cost of prescription drugs, particularly for elderly Americans, and I believe there are ways to address these issues without endangering public health. We cannot and should not jeopardize the safety of our rug supply on the unproven mechanism of re-importation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting YES on the Kingston Amendment.

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about a highly controversial provision that allows for commercial importation of prescription drugs from any country, regardless of the safety of their prescription drug supply, and includes no safety mechanisms to protect Americans from potentially harmful drug imports.

My greatest concern is the number of counterfeit, illegal, and unapproved drugs flowing into the United States right now under a system which is closed to prescription drug imports. Today, Customs and Border Protection estimates that 273,000 prescription drug imports enter our country every single day--of which less than one percent are screened before being sent to Americans' homes. A 2003 report by the FDA found that 88 percent of the medicines imported into the United States were unapproved or otherwise illegal.

Mr. Chairman, administration after administration, regardless of the party in control of the White House, has been unable to certify the safety of our prescription drug supply in a market open to prescription drug imports. I strongly oppose prescription drug importation and encourage my colleagues to support the Kingston amendment to strip the appropriations bill of the harmful importation provision.

Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 3161, the FY 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill, I want to voice my serious concerns about the provision in the bill that would prevent the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, from protecting U.S. consumers from the import of unsafe pharmaceuticals.

While we have had a de facto policy of allowing the importation of personal use quantities of prescription drugs from Canada, the bill before us would for the first time allow wholesalers and pharmacists to import bulk quantities of prescription drugs from any country, regardless of origin. The resulting increase in unregulated drug imports into this country would be exponential.

Such an increase would almost certainly lead to a rise in the number of counterfeit drugs and drugs shipped without adequate shipping safety precautions, creating serious health risks for patients.

I understand the need, sometimes the desperate need, for less expensive medications.

To a great extent, this need is a function of the failure of our health care system to uniformly provide adequate health care coverage. For some 44 million Americans, the system fails to provide any coverage at all. And the Medicare Part D doughnut hole continues to make medications unaffordable for many seniors.

We clearly must find a way to make health care, including prescription drugs, affordable to more Americans. But reimportation on this scale is simply the wrong prescription for what ails us.

Even if we were to focus more narrowly on imports from Canada--and keep in mind that this bill would allow imports from any country--no one should assume that the safety issues would be resolved.

Many American consumers who order prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies assume those medicines are coming from Canada. However, this is often not the case.

In December 2005, FDA announced the results of an operation to confiscate parcels containing pharmaceuticals from India, Israel, Costa Rica and Vanuatu, 43 percent of which had been ordered from Canadian Internet pharmacies. Of the drugs being promoted as "Canadian," 85 percent actually came from 27 countries around the globe.

In response to the investigation, then Acting FDA Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach said, "These results make clear there are Internet sites that claim to be Canadian that in fact are peddling drugs of dubious origin, safety and efficacy."

This investigation raises serious questions about the form such an importation program would take. Who are the "wholesalers" and "pharmacies" that would be importing in large quantities and how would they be regulated? How would their operations interface with the existing supply chain? How would FDA protect consumers from fraud or drug contamination?

Congress has previously given HHS the authority to permit bulk drug reimportation, but both the Clinton and Bush administrations declined to use this authority because of the intractable safety issues involved.

I simply cannot support tying the hands of the FDA with regard to the importation of prescription drugs when their safety and effectiveness cannot be guaranteed. I urge a yes vote on the Kingston amendment.

The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.