The Acting chairman: It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 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. 6 offered by Mr. Kingston:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act shall be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of Agriculture who would require contracts to construct renewable energy systems to be carried out in compliance with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act.
The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman I yield myself 45 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, we are at a time right now when people are paying $3.10 for gas, $3.30 a gas. Gas is on the rise, and our options are limited. We are importing 60 percent of our oil.
It is ironic that on an Ag policy where 2 percent of the population is feeding all 100 percent, if we were importing 50 percent of our food, it would be a national security crisis, and yet oil, which is just as important, we are importing 60 percent of it.
During this time when we are in desperate need for alternative energy options, we should not increase the price of making cellulosic ethanol. And yet in the Ag bill, there was a clause that says if you are building an ethanol plant, you have to have prevailing wages, which drives up the cost of the plant and, therefore, drives up the cost of ethanol.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting chairman: The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. Scott of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose this amendment.
This amendment smacks right at heart of our wage structure, of fair wages and protected wages. Long before Taft-Hartley, before the Wagner Act, this was put on the books in 1931, 76 years ago.
And I might add Davis-Bacon was put on the books by a Republican administration, President Hoover, because at that time it was needed to have wage stabilization. Davis-Bacon is the cornerstone of the wage protection structure in this country that has produced the middle class that has been the backbone of this country. Davis-Bacon prevents underbidding of any contractor coming in on a government contract, low bidding and attempting to bring in a contract and hire workers below the prevailing wage. It is most important. And I might say, Mr. Chairman, this amendment was dealt with in the Agriculture Committee and soundly defeated at that time.
Essentially, what they are proposing is this: In the Ag bill, we have dedicated $4 billion for loan guarantees to set up ethanol plants. Now, Mr. Chairman, these are highly sophisticated operations. In order to come in and to be able to have the opportunity to be able to process an Internet technology, a foreign operation and a product that is clearly into the future, clearly we need the best talent, the best skills. We don't need not to protect the prevailing wage in this community.
Now, my opponents are going to come and say they are probably talking about union wages. Nothing in here says that. It says prevailing wages, prevailing wages that are set by a scientific survey that goes in and takes a survey of the wages in that local community. Why should the government be an instrument to come in and undermine a local community's labor standards? That is what Davis-Bacon was put in to protect, and that is why this is so important here today.
We need not be a thief coming in to take away from a local community what they have earned and their wage standards at their level. Why should the government come in and allow for this to happen? These protections were put in to prevent fly-by-night operations from coming into a community. Because so many government contracts are to the lower bidder and sometimes they bid low so they can go out and pay these low wages that are below the prevailing wage in that community. It is wrong to do that and, quite honestly, unAmerican. Because this law, Davis- Bacon, has been on the books for 75 years and has done this country good, and we deserve to keep it in.
Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. King of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
I listened attentively to the other gentleman from Georgia, who spoke with such confidence and authority on the Davis-Bacon wage scale. I may be the only Member of Congress, I know of no others, who has earned Davis-Bacon wages and paid Davis-Bacon wages, and I have lived underneath that for over 30 years, 28 years writing paychecks, over 14 consecutive months meeting payroll. I know what this does.
But I can tell you the history of it also goes back to an Iowan, an Iowan President, as the gentleman said, Herbert Hoover.
But this is the last remaining Jim Crow law on the books that I know of. It was designed to keep blacks out of the construction trade in New York. And I would ask the gentleman from Georgia to join me in helping to start the repeal of this process because this is the aspect of freedom between the employer and the employee.
Prevailing wage by definition, union scale in practice, there is no other way to analyze this. Union scale is what gets produced when the Department of Labor produces the proposed prevailing wage.
And when you talk about $4 billion set up for cellulosic and its being a highly sophisticated project, yes, it is; and we build these projects without its being union labor sometimes. If they can compete, we do it with union labor. My former crews have done so, and they are highly skilled and highly trained, and they get paid a wage that often is a 12-month-a-year wage, not something for just the hours they are on the job but wages and benefits so they can make a good wage and stay with you year round.
There was over a billion dollars invested in renewable energy in my district last year. There will be over a billion dollars invested this year. We are number one in biodiesel production in America of the 435 districts. We will be number one in ethanol by the end of this year. And there is no way that any other district in the country has a hope of catching up with the Fifth Congressional District of Iowa if you are going to impose Davis-Bacon wage scales on this and burn up at least 20 percent of the capital that will go into this. The cellulosic is experimental, and it is in my neighborhood. We need to invest the dollar as well.
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 for a very practical reason. The State of California, which is probably the most populous State in the United States, has done more for cutting energy costs by doing energy conservation and renewable energy. It has built all kinds of plants, all kinds of opportunities for renewable energy. It has reduced the per capita energy use in the United States to the lowest per capita in the country, doing the best job. And every one of those facilities was built under Davis-Bacon law.
It is not a problem. We have built every courthouse, every schoolhouse, every road, every capital in this country. It has been on the books for a long, long time. And this is just a get at labor, get at people, try to cut wages, go to the lowest cost. Essentially, it increases all kinds of imported labor.
This is the wrong way to do it. It is a mean amendment, and it should be defeated.
Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1¼minutes.
I wanted to say what we are talking about here is if a business goes and gets a loan, then the government, because it is a government loan, turns around then and basically dictates what they have to pay, and what they have to pay is a higher wage than it is in most communities. Otherwise, the Democrats would not be putting it in here. If this was about free enterprise, this clause would not be in the farm bill.
And my biggest gripe is that it is making energy costs go up because it is making the construction of alternative energy facilities higher. As Mr. King says, it is about a 20 percent bump in the cost of construction of a cellulosic ethanol plant. That's why I think it is a concern.
Who is going to pay for this? The consumers at the pump. And, in the meantime, there might be fewer alternatives.
In Georgia right now my good friend, Mr. Scott, knows we have three ethanol plants on the books, another two coming, and potentially 70 to 80 that will be built in the next 2 to 3 years. Now those are not all cellulosic ethanol plants, but why should we increase the cost of those?
I am excited about this because it does represent a new avenue in alternative fuels, and I don't think we should make anything increase the cost of that.
Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. Scott of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I had to come back to respond to Mr. King's assertion that Davis- Bacon was put in for some reason to prevent black workers from working.
I went back to the point of the law so I could make sure I could clarify that. This is what the law says: Adopted in 1931 by President Hoover as an emergency measure intended to help stabilize the construction industry and to encourage employment at fair wages, not less than those prevailing in the locality of the construction work and not to keep black people from working.
Mr. Kingston: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
The Acting chairman: The gentleman from Georgia controls 1 minute. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 45 seconds.
Mr. Kingston: I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. King of Iowa: I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
It's interesting to me how the components of history don't match up the same from what I read and what the other gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) reads. And I've read through a fair amount of this history.
But the foundation of the Davis-Bacon wage scale went back to a Federal building contract that was awarded on low bid in New York City. And there was a contractor that brought in labor from Alabama, and it was African American labor from Alabama because they would work cheaper than the union labor in New York City. That's an historical fact.
This is a Jim Crow law. And I would appreciate it if the gentleman would join me in repealing it from the books. But it's a practical application today. It's 8-35 percent more money when you go Davis-Bacon wage scale. I average it out to 20 percent.
My company, that I sold to my oldest son, has done work on these sites, and we know the costs and we know the skills that are there. And we're developing the skills within our region and our neighborhood because we keep those people 12 months out of the year. They don't always go in and out of the union hall; if they can compete, they do. But we need to develop the skills and intellectual property. We need to develop our fuel so that we aren't importing oil from the Middle East.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
Ms. DeLauro:I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Why? Why would we want to deny American workers, including those involved in rural development, the opportunity to receive fair prevailing wage protection? It's a matter of fairness for working men and women.
This is a program that is 75 years old, started by a Republican Congress in a Republican administration. The amendment attempts to undo what the House farm bill passed last week.
Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon prevents our workers from being exploited, and it encourages high-quality work. Again, I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
The Acting chairman: It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
Mr. Jordan of Ohio: 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. 7 offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 5.5 percent.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Jordan of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, government spends too much money. Ask any American family, is government so lean, so efficient, has it tightened its belt so much that it just can't cut anymore, it has to spend what this bill purports to spend and wants to spend? And if you ask a typical American family that, you're going to get an overwhelmingly, No, government is too big; it spends too much.
And if you don't believe the American people and American families, look at the numbers. We have a $3 trillion budget we're dealing with here. We have an $8 trillion national debt. The government spends $23,000 per American household. We have an entitlement crisis that everybody knows is going to happen here in the next 10 to 15 years when you think about what we face in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And then this bill grows, over last year's spending level, 2½times the rate of inflation, 5.9 percent increase over last year, $1 billion increase in spending over what we did last year.
My amendment is real simple. Frankly, it's the same amendment I've offered, now this is the ninth time. All non-defense related appropriations bills we have offered this amendment to, and the amendment is real simple. It says we're not going to cut anything; we're just going to spend what we spent last year. A pretty modest first step in beginning to get a handle on the spending that is out of control with the Federal Government.
Because one thing I know for certain, I've said this several times, but it's so true in my time in public life. We always hear about tax and spend politicians. The truth is, it's spend and tax. Spending always drives the equation. More and more spending inevitably leads to higher taxes and more taxes. In fact, we've seen that from this body over the last several weeks, tax increases on American families, American business owners, tax increases that hurt those families, hurt our businesses, and ultimately hurt our economy.
This is a simple amendment which says, let's spend what we spent last year; after all, all kinds of families, all kinds of taxpayers, all kinds of business owners have had to do that time and time again. It's not too much to ask the Federal Government that has a $3 trillion budget, an $8 trillion debt, and spends $23,000 per household, it is not too much to ask the Federal Government to do the same thing.
And with that, 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 rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment, which would cut all of the agencies and programs in the bill by 5.5 percent to stay at the 2007 level.
This would represent a cut of more than $1 billion from the bill. Now is exactly the wrong time to cut funding for the critical programs under this bill. It is not the way to restore fiscal discipline and balance the budget.
Rather than using targeted precision cuts, as we have done with the bill, an across-the-board cut hurts core programs, increases the investment deficits our communities across the country have had to overcome in the past years, regardless of the value of the program. We face investment deficits in fundamental programs, rural and economic development, nutrition, international food assistance, agriculture exports, conservation, food and drug safety.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that the fiscal year 2008 mark provides total discretionary resources of $18.8 billion, $1 billion above 2007, $982 million above the budget request. These are modest increases, but critical to provide basic services to rural communities to feed those in need and support conservation efforts. And 95 percent of the increase in this bill is used precisely to restore these programs.
If we cut $1 billion from the bill, as the gentleman is proposing, this is what would happen: we would not be able to fund these efforts in rural development. Direct loans for the section 515 Rural Multi- Family Rental Housing Program; section 502 directs single family housing programs; broadband grants, the Community Connect Broadband Program; Empowerment Zone; Enterprise Community Program; Community Facility Grant Program; Rural Business Enterprise and Opportunity Grants Program. We would have to significantly cut funding for water and waste grants, mutual self-help housing grant programs, farm labor housing loans and grants. In conservation, we will eliminate funding for the Watershed Flood Prevention Operation.
Watershed surveys and planning. Cut funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, and the Resources Conservation and Development Program.
Nutrition. Without $1 billion, we may not be able to restore funding for the Commodities Supplemental Food Program. We may have to cut WIC administrative grants to States.
The increases needed and provided in this bill are not based on the belief that we should just throw money at the challenges that we face. The modest increases are about meeting the Federal Government's obligation.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Jordan of Ohio: I appreciate the Chair of the subcommittee and her work. But, frankly, the other side has got to get a new playbook. Every time we do this, they talk about devastating cuts and how it's going to ruin this, the sky is going to fall, the world is going to end, everything's going to go to, you know. They always use that. It's not even a cut. We're going to spend what we spent last year.
And just let me ask the question of the American people: Do you think, instead of spending $18.8 billion, do you think government can get along with spending $17.7 billion? We made it last year on that; didn't seem to be too much to ask before. We always hear it is a devastating cut when it's not even a cut.
Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the amount of time that we have remaining on each side.
The Acting chairman: Both sides have 2½minutes remaining.
Mr. Jordan of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLauro:I would just concur that I think what we need to do is to look at core programs. Whether it is at the USDA or at the FDA, the gentleman's amendment would force all of these agencies that cover rural development, and I laid out the programs. Again, if you take a look at the demographics of rural America and their needs, which have to do with water and conservation and transportation and broadband and housing, by the very nature of your amendment, we've cut $1 billion from all those very, very critically important programs that are meeting the needs today of rural America in an effort that they may be able to re-energize and revitalize their communities, put together the kinds of community institutions that will help people in rural America to be able to thrive. They have taken a terrible blow in wages and in globalization. And what you would do with your amendment is just snatch that money from these kinds of efforts.
And I will just say this to you: quite honestly, what we've tried to do is, because the administration, and I'm presuming that this is something that you support along with the administration, is to say to rural America, You're on your own. If you don't have it, forget about it, we're not going to be there to help you. Government has a responsibility, a moral responsibility, to engage when people are facing challenges in their lives.
I believe everyone in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle would concur on what we are seeing happening in rural America and what is happening to the economic stability of this area and of these communities and of these individuals. It's not statistics; it's people. It's people's lives; it's people's abilities to have health care, to take their kids to school, to be able to afford education and transportation costs. Why would you want to take that away?
Why would you want to decimate nutrition programs when 40 percent of children in rural America are dependent upon food stamps? Why would you want to say no to nutrition when one out of eight families with an infant in this Nation is food insecure?
Let me tell you what food insecure means. It means they're hungry. They're hungry in the richest country in the world; and that is wrong, which is why your amendment really should be defeated, and it makes no sense.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting chairman: Members are reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Jordan of Ohio: Before yielding to my friend from Georgia, let me say this: the lady used the term "take away." For the umpteenth time, we're not taking away anything. We want to spend what we spent last year. The reason we don't want to increase spending is because everybody knows, the American people know this, when you increase spending and spend and spend and spend, it leads to tax and tax and tax. And that's what hurts those same families the gentlelady was talking about.
When you take more of their money, money that they could invest in their kids, pay for their kids' education, pay for that vacation they want to take as a family, all kinds of things they want to spend it on, when you take that away from them, that's what really taking away from families is all about. That's what we want to stop.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member, my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), for the remainder of our time.
Mr. Kingston: I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
I want to say that I support this for two reasons. Number one, this bill will be vetoed by the President should it make it through the United States Senate, which is doubtful to begin with, but that's nothing we can control over here. But we know the President has sent out a veto message that the spending level is too high.
We have debated this in committee before. I offered a similar amendment that failed. But I think we need to be realistic. The bill that we're spending tonight is not realistic.
Number two, I want to point out something. This is actually not a 5.5 percent cut because it's not an $18 billion bill. It's really a $90 billion bill. However, because of what I would call negligence on the part of the House, practiced by Republicans and Democrats over the years, we have decided to put about three-quarters of this bill on automatic spending. We call it mandatory. Now, nothing is mandatory when you make the laws. Nothing is mandatory. So it's kind of lazy. It's just sort of "spend as is."
And my friend from Connecticut has said that the gentleman from Ohio's amendment would actually take the nutrition and food programs away from children, yet most of them fall into this red category, which isn't even touched by his amendment.
His amendment is actually very conservative. It only affects about the $18 billion portion of this bill. And again, that's not where most of these food programs are, these critical programs. Now, I'm a believer that we should be debating both the red and the yellow portions of this bill and look at it realistically because this is a $90 billion bill, and the 5.5 percent only affects $18 billion.
And with that, I want to say that's why I think that it is important for us to always look into the authorizing side of a spending bill and the discretionary side.
I do support the amendment. And we have had this amendment, a similar amendment, in committee already. My friends on the committee have known my position on this.
The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Jordan of Ohio: 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 Ohio will be postponed.
The Acting chairman: It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
Mr. Flake: 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. 8 Offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds in this Act shall be available to the Auburn University for the Catfish Pathogen Genomic Project, Auburn, AL.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise provided by this Act for "Agricultural Research Service-- Salaries and Expenses" is hereby reduced by $878,046.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, it's my intent to offer a number of earmark limitation amendments to the FY 2008 Agriculture appropriation bill.
In offering these earmark limitation amendments, I hope that my colleagues will join me in finally grabbing the reins on runaway earmark spending, and if you will pardon the pun, plant the seed of fiscal discipline in the appropriation process.
In its present form, this bill is under veto threat because it jumps the rails of the President's plan to have a balanced budget by 2012 by close to $1 billion. Part of the $1 billion increase in spending over last year's levels is caused by over 400 earmarks in the bill worth over $300 million that direct taxpayer dollars to congressionally selected projects.
As my colleagues have heard me say a few too many times, I am sure, passing appropriation bills that contain hundreds of earmarks worth millions of dollars that are simply noted by phrases in the committee report shortchanges the legislative process of authorization, appropriation and oversight. The earmarking process is fraught with a lack of transparency, fiscal responsibility and equity for taxpayers, all too often rewarding the districts of powerful Members of Congress in the Appropriations Committee at the expense of the rest of the body.
Let me just note that, according to a review of the bill in a report by Taxpayers for Common Sense, members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and party leadership, who make up 5 percent of the House, will take home one-third of the dollar value of agricultural earmarks, nearly $100 million.
If you assume that earmarks with multiple sponsors are shared equally, members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and party leadership will send an average of about 4 million earmarked dollars back to their districts.
In contrast, if you look at the remaining earmarked funds and distribute them evenly over the remaining 400-plus House districts, at best they would value slightly less than $500,000. As I have said repeatedly, we are creating winners and losers here.
I'm usually referring to industries that are refunded by the earmarks. But it is true also here in Congress, if you are a seasoned Member in a position of influence, you typically get a lot more. It is simply not right for all the high-minded purpose we give to the contemporary practice of earmarks, talking about Article 1 of the Constitution and the authority it gives us, to then turn around and the leadership and the members of the Appropriations Subcommittee that control the bill get so much more than anyone else. It hardly seems fair. It hardly seems right.
In particular, this amendment would prohibit $878,046 in Federal funds from being used for catfish genome research in Auburn, Alabama, and would reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. I think that this is definitely one earmark that the taxpayers would love to throw back.
According to the earmark description in the certification letter, the funding would go to Auburn University "to help continue important research into the genomic behavior of catfish in order to resist and cope with virulent disease strains." It appears to me that the earmark is intended to make a genetic map of catfish.
Mr. Chairman, there are so many earmarks in this bill related to genetic research, I feel I am on some kind of farm-based CSI episode. Unfortunately, this isn't a creative drama. This spending is far too real. This seems to be a perennial earmark. It has received over $1 million in the last 3 fiscal years alone.
Where is the Federal nexus here? Why are we funding catfish research and not trout research? What about sunfish out there? Don't they deserve something? How do we choose here? How do we choose which university gets the funding? It is simply an arbitrary process based on your position on a committee or in the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, that seems wrong to me.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Rogers of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting chairman: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I would like to first start by yielding 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, every year, the administration has castigated the Congress for funding these items. In fiscal year 2007, in the continuing resolution, we left the decision up to the administration. In order to decide what to do, the administration conducted an extensive review of all of the "earmarks" in the Agriculture Research Service account. Do you know what? They decided that the vast, overwhelming proportion of the earmarks were worth funding. This one on catfish genomics was approved by the administration. It may have a funny name, but it makes a good sound bite.
I am sure that the members of each party that requested this funding can tell the House a lot about the importance of the catfish industry to their State and the economic losses from the disease in a very serious way.
We also have recently witnessed what is happening with imported product in terms of catfish from China and, in fact, what that has done to that market in these communities.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Rogers of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona for bringing attention to this vitally important research being conducted at Auburn University, an outstanding university in my district.
As my colleagues from Alabama know, and specifically my friend and colleague, Mr. Davis from the Seventh District, Auburn University is the home to USDA Aquatic Animal Health Research Laboratory. This laboratory conducts important research to help solve challenges in aquaculture that diminish productivity, lower the quality of catfish products, and hurt the long-term health of our domestic producers.
As my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee know, catfish is the leading aquaculture industry in the United States. In 2005, according to USDA, domestic producers sold 650 million pounds of catfish valued at $460 million. That total is only expected to grow. Today, catfish production has become one of the most important agricultural activities in States such as Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and, of course, my home State of Alabama.
In recent years, the American catfish industry has been faced with intense competition from foreign producers, specifically countries like China and Vietnam. This not only poses serious challenges to our economy but, as we have seen in recent news reports about tainted Chinese food products, also to our health. In 2005, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi banned Vietnamese catfish after U.S. health officials detected a banned antibiotic in Vietnamese imports. That ban remains in effect. In May of this year, Alabama banned Chinese catfish over the same concern.
As with many agricultural imports, we have no control over what drugs these foreign countries are giving to their catfish, nor do we know what diseases they are trying to prevent. But one thing we do know is that we do not want these products, these diseases and those threats to our food and our health in our country.
That is why the funding included in this bill for the Catfish Pathogen Genomic Project is so important. It helps protect the safety and health of our food supply, it helps protect and strengthen important American products and an industry critical to the economics of several States, and it helps carry on the tradition of university based research supported by the Federal Government that benefits our economy and society.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask the support of my colleagues for this important research program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Flake: May I inquire as to the time remaining.
The Acting chairman: The gentleman from Arizona has 1 minute. The gentleman from Alabama has 90 seconds.
Mr. Flake: Let me just say there is over at the Department of Agriculture something called the Agricultural Research Service, or ARS, account, and it is being funded at over $1 billion for fiscal year 2008. Now, we may not like the programs they choose to fund. If we don't like it and we don't think they have a good process, we should exercise the oversight that we are supposed to exercise and change it. But to circumvent that process and say because you may not have given us a grant in one particular year then we are simply going to go around you and earmark, that simply seems wrong.
We are getting away from the authorization, appropriation, oversight program and process that has been the hallmark of this Congress forever. With earmarking, the contemporary process of earmarking, we are circumventing that and we do very little oversight of the Federal agencies, because we are seeking to compete with them.
We set up a program over there and we say you have a merit-based program, a competitive grant program, and then, when they don't choose what we want to, we circumvent it.
Mr. Rogers of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Jackson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I just want to stand in defense of the subcommittee and its work. We tried to be as responsive to members on this committee as possible, given that many members of the committee do not understand the specific details of every congressional district. But this is what Congressman Artur Davis had to say:
"Auburn University is seeking funding to continue research on endemic and emerging pathogens of catfish. Because the prevalence of catfish diseases constitutes $90-100 million in annual losses for catfish farmers, it is important to prevent these diseases to ensure a healthy national food supply and a successful economic development activity. This funding will allow Auburn University to conduct outreach to farmers and ensure that these vaccines make it into the field to protect the food supply of the American people. Earlier research from this project has already led to the commercialization of two vaccines that are now helping in the reduction of these disease losses."
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Rogers, and I also want to thank Congressman Artur Davis for looking out for the interests of this vital industry in their State. The committee did its work and honored their request. We should vote down the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Rogers of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by saying to my friend from Arizona, I share his concerns over some of our fiscal behavior in this Congress in recent years, but clearly this kind of USDA research university partnership is exactly what we should be fostering, given our concerns in this country about our food supply and its safety.
Mr. Jackson did make reference to the fact that, in 2003, half of our catfish production was being affected by two diseases that this partnership has now alleviated. We can continue to ensure that supply is safe with this kind of expenditure.
The Acting chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Flake: 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 Arizona will be postponed.
The Acting chairman: It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds in this Act shall be available to Cornell University for Grape Genetics research, Geneva, NY.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise provided by this Act for "Agricultural Research Service-- Salaries and Expenses" is hereby reduced by $628,843.
The Acting chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate $628,843 for the Grape Genetics Program at Cornell University and reduce the cost of the bill by a corresponding amount.
Mr. Chairman, it would seem that Congress is a one-stop shop for the wine industry. There is in this bill here $628,843 earmarked for the Grape Genetics Program, as mentioned, in addition to a $2.6 million earmark to actually construct the Center for Grape Genetics.
The earmark description in the certification letter submitted to the committee by the sponsor of the earmark informs us that this earmark would fund a full-time grape geneticist at the Grape Genetics Research Unit and support the viability of the grape and wine industry.
Now, according to some, the wine industry faces a growing demand for new technologies and varieties in order to be a player in the global marketplace. I don't doubt that at all. I don't deny that research and development is important to the wine and grape industry. I simply question why the Federal Government is expected to foot the bill for a private industry.
According to recent reports, direct sales of wine to consumers are up 30 percent this year. Let me repeat that. Direct sales of wine to consumers are up 30 percent this year.
According to a study unveiled by the Congressional Wine Caucus earlier this year, the U.S. wine, grape and grape products industry contributes more than $160 billion annually to the U.S. economy, $160 billion annually.
This study indicated that the industry supports more than 1 million full-time equivalent positions and that there are more than 900,000 grape-bearing acres in the U.S. In addition, according to the 2006 report by the USDA, New York has 239 wineries currently, as opposed to 17 in 1976. I would submit that this looks like an industry that is thriving.
If the Federal Government is going to support genetic research for one industry, why doesn't the Federal Government provide support for all of them? What mechanism is there to stop Congress from funding mold research on gourmet cheese, or soil research for truffle farming? Where does it stop? Where is the Federal nexus here? Why do we continue to fund these profitable industries?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Walsh of New York: Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting chairman: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walsh of New York: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment because, if nothing else, it points out the essentially beneficial nature of public-private partnerships. Just as the Federal Government paid for the marvelous water projects in the West which helped Mr. Flake's State to grow and prosper, these research dollars have made the United States the global power in agriculture.
The Agriculture Research Service established the Grape Genetics Research Unit in Geneva, New York, at the center of New York's grape- growing region in conjunction with Cornell University.
The goals of this program are to reduce losses to crop yield and quality that result from disease, pests and environmental stress, and to improve grape and grape product quality and utilization.
The genetic research unit's primary research areas are development of resistance to pests and diseases, superior adaptation of grapes to growing conditions and tolerances for environmental and weather-related stress, and improved product quality through enhanced knowledge of genetic factors governing color, flavor, aroma, sensory characteristics and yield.
The grape genetics research unit works with growers both in New York and nationally to develop root stocks and grape varieties that are pest and disease resistant.
The explosive growth that my friend from Arizona mentioned is a direct result of the research that is being done here and elsewhere in the United States thanks to the support of the American taxpayer. The plant genetic research unit in Geneva works very closely with farmers in all parts of the country. In fact, 1,200 varieties of grapes are growing at the Geneva ag station today.
Nationally, it is a $30 billion industry, the wine industry. There are 23,000 growers; 5,000 wineries; and in New York State, it is a $7 billion industry. This industry is paying back to the Federal Government, the State and communities $17 billion in taxes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, let me just say, nobody questions the validity or the importance of research. Every industry needs to do it, and do a lot of it. But we have a lot of high-tech industries that are vital to this country. Why aren't we funding a company like Intel, for example, for issues related to testing of circuit boards? That is important. They face international competition.
Why do we say all right here, only we are going to fund grape research? Also, when we have a program over at the Department of Agriculture that we fund to the tune of a billion dollars this year to actually provide grants in this area, and still it is not enough. Still we say we have to earmark funds to go around that process. It seems like overkill, and I think the taxpayer deserves a break here at some point.
Mr. Walsh of New York: Mr. Chairman, I yield 1½minutes to my friend and colleague from Utica, New York, in whose district Geneva resides, Mr. Arcuri.
Mr. Arcuri: I thank my colleague from New York, and I thank the distinguished chairwoman from Connecticut.
Mr. Chairman, I have only been here for 7 months, but in that short time it has become overwhelmingly clear to me that some of my colleagues are more concerned with establishing a reputation than addressing the needs of the American people.
Over and over, some of these colleagues from the other side of the aisle march down to the floor and take aim at appropriations projects that they feel aren't worthy of Federal support, as if people at one end of the country know what is important for people on the other end of the country.
I hear them talk about these earmarks and try to demonize them, talk about them being hidden and going to powerful Members of Congress. Well, there is nothing hidden about this. It is very clear what this project is. And as for powerful Members of Congress, I would like to be impressed, but I know as a freshman I am certainly not a powerful Member of Congress.
There are no winners or losers here. They talk about winners or losers here. The only winners are the American people. This program is for the American people. It is to ensure that our grapes and our wines that are so important to so many people in this country continue to be high quality and the kind of quality that makes America competitive.
The benefit of this project is not limited to my congressional district, but to people all over the country. Mr. Chairman, it is not about making a point or establishing a reputation; it is about conducting important research that protects the safety of our food supply, helps our domestic economy and the grape industry.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, let me just say to close, again, research is important in every industry, but there are industries all over the country in agriculture, in high tech, in storage, in transportation, you name it. It is going on all over, and not everyone is looking to the Federal Government to pay their research costs.
Why here? Why do we have an organization that gets earmarks virtually every year for the same thing over and over and over again? When does the taxpayer get a break? When is this industry weaned?
We just had a farm bill pass last week with subsidies going on and on and on. Here are more agricultural subsidies. I don't know where it stops, particularly with the deficit we have, the ongoing debt that we carry. It is time to give the taxpayers a break. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Walsh of New York: Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. Hinchey: Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to my dear friend and colleague for providing me with this time to say a couple of things in opposition to this amendment. I think the person who is proposing this amendment simply does not understand what is being done here.
The agricultural industry is a very important part of the economy of New York State, one of the most essential parts of the economy of New York State. The grape industry is an important part of the agricultural industry. This Grape Genetics Research Center, which has been established as a result of legislation which was put forward by Mr. Walsh and myself and others in 2005, is an important part of the way grape production is advancing in the United States and becoming a more important part of American agriculture. It is providing jobs for our citizens, and it is providing more and more economic growth in a number of parts of our country all across our country.
It enables grape growers to deal with the cold winters in the Northeast and enables grape growers to deal with the arid circumstances that they confront in certain parts of southern California and the other forms of diverse issues that need to be dealt with by grape growers in many places across the country.
This means of searching into this industry and providing better ways of doing it is an important part in the way in which we are protecting and growing our agricultural economy.
I would hope that the offeror of this amendment would spend a few moments to look more closely at these circumstances, because I think if he does, he might begin to understand the value of agriculture and the value of this kind of genetics research.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
The Chairman: It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the Alternative Uses for Tobacco, Maryland grant.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise provided by this Act for "Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service--Research and Education Activities" (and the amount specified under such heading for special grants for agricultural research) are hereby reduced by $400,000.
The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $400,000 in Federal funds from being used for alternative uses for tobacco in Maryland and reduces the cost of the bill by a consistent amount.
I would suggest to my colleagues that we can find some better alternative uses for the taxpayers' money, like paying down the national debt, for example.
In fact, just yesterday, Treasury Secretary Paulson predicted that the Treasury will reach the nearly $9 trillion statutory debt limit in early October. I would argue that this is a sign that we need to spend less on appropriation bills just like this one.
The certification letter submitted to the Appropriations Committee stated that the funding will go to the University of Maryland College of Agriculture and Natural Resources for the Alternative Uses of Tobacco Research Project.
The funding for this earmark is through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Special Research Grants account, which are congressionally directed and noncompetitive research earmarks.
The Alternative Uses of Tobacco Research Project is focused on finding new, nonsmoking uses for tobacco, such as pharmaceutical or biotechnology applications.
I am not denying that there aren't potential benefits for this research for the tobacco industry, for pharmaceutical industry, or for other biotechnology industries, but how long is the taxpayer going to be expected to fund specific research for the benefit of these industries?
This is not a new earmark. In fact, the project has received earmarks of between $320,000 and $400,000 each year since fiscal year 2002. Including this earmark, the University of Maryland will have received over $2 million in Federal earmarks for their alternative use project.
Why are we singling out this program and this school and earmarking funds for it year after year after year? What makes this program at the University of Maryland more deserving than Federal funds at other schools or organizations in Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, California or elsewhere around the country? There are many other earmark projects that we are funding at the University of Maryland as well.
According to research done by Citizens Against Government Waste, from 2001 to 2006, the University of Maryland received just under $17 million in Federal earmarks. I think it is interesting to note in 2006 the University of Maryland paid lobbying firms more than $200,000 for various lobbying activities. Are these lobbyists lobbying Congress for additional earmarks?
When do we say enough is enough? When the smoke clears, the taxpayers are still being asked to fund tobacco research.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Hoyer: Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hoyer: My friend from Arizona is having a good time. I don't blame him, but this is something that is good for the country. It is good for literally millions of people who have grown tobacco.
Let me say to my friend from Arizona: A, I don't smoke; B, I have never smoked. And when redistricting occurred and I got most of the tobacco-growing areas of Maryland, I went down and met with the Farm Bureau. I said, Look, I'm new to you. You don't know me. Actually, they did know me because I had been in office for some time. But I said, I want to tell you something right out front; I think smoking is bad for people's health, and I am not for it.
About eight of the 10 to 15 tobacco farmers that were there said to me after the meeting, they came up to me and said, You know what, we don't smoke and we don't want our kids to smoke.
That aside, Maryland has had one of the most successful tobacco buyout programs in America. In my district, the tobacco-growing area of Maryland, 90-plus percent, almost 95 percent of the farmers have taken the buyout, which means they can no longer ever on the property they own have tobacco grown for the purposes of smoking tobacco.
There were literally, as you can imagine, hundreds, and across the country there are thousands and thousands of farmers so situated, families who have been involved in this process for most of their lives and who produce a product, used alternatively, can have extraordinary value. But the problem is the research has not been done on it. Why has it not been done on it? Because the tobacco product was a very valuable product for a bad purpose; that is, smoking. Harmful to health and a destroyer of life.
Very frankly, some of the Farm Bureau came to me and said, Do you think we can find an alternative use, because we have a lot of expertise in growing this product, and we have facilities to do so. We think it can have some beneficial effect. My good friend said he thought that was the case. He is correct. There are a lot of good things in life that can happen, and his proposition is why this money, why here?
Well, because I represent my district. But I also believe this has national implications that if we can get a product from tobacco that is useful, and I want to discuss some of them, that will be good for our country, good for our economy, good for jobs, and good for people who have been displaced from the very lucrative but harmful vocation and who are now put to perhaps not having nearly the livelihood they expected to have.
The amendment seeks to eliminate funding for an important research project being undertaken at the University of Maryland. One of America's extraordinary research institutions, a land grant college established in the mid part of the 19th century, it seeks to develop safe and beneficial nonsmoking uses for tobacco.
The Alternative Uses of Tobacco Project has several very important objectives. First, we are seeking to take advantage of the many beneficial nonsmoking uses of tobacco. Most people would not think of the tobacco plant as having a use beyond smoking. They would be wrong. I didn't know that either, frankly.
Tobacco naturally produces high-nutrition proteins, one of the highest of any product, industrial raw materials and large amounts of biomass which can be used for renewable energy. Think of it. We talk about corn, we talk about other things, and we want to talk about cellulosic to produce energy. We just passed a farm bill seeking to do that. Think if all of the tobacco farms in America could be turned into energy producers, an extraordinarily positive contribution to the economy of our country.
Secondly, we're trying to revitalize tobacco-producing communities across the southeastern United States by shifting their focus away from the traditional use of the crop and generating new markets and new industries for beneficial new nonsmoking purposes.
Unlike Maryland, the Federal buyout, as you know, didn't eliminate the growing of tobacco; and in many States that have buyout programs they didn't eliminate the use of tobacco for smoking purposes. Maryland did. So that if we could give alternative uses for a product and get it out of the sale of use for smoking products, what a health benefit that would be for America.
So I suggest that this $400,000 is an extraordinarily good investment in health care, in the economy for our people.
Third, we are attempting to develop new technologies for producing leaf proteins. Leaf proteins are as nutritious as milk protein, but, unlike other protein sources, they are generally nonallergenic. Tobacco may be the largest producer of leaf proteins of any agricultural crop, but its historically inadequate processing technologies have limited their development.
Now, let me tell you something. The tobacco companies do not grow tobacco. They sell cigarettes. So they do not have an incentive to do this. The people who have an incentive to do it are the tobacco farmers, but, guess what, the tobacco farmers don't have a lot of money. It's the tobacco companies that have a lot of money.
So the tobacco companies rely on, I'm sure in your State as they do in mine, land grant institutions who have focused on agricultural research, as does the University of Maryland, as does the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
So I have some other things to say, but I think you get the point.
Mr. Flake is a friend of mine. I have great respect for Mr. Flake. Not only that, I think he offers his amendments in a very positive way. I've never seen him get mad at anybody. I've never seen him criticize anybody. I've never seen him say a cross word to anybody. He sets forth what is a correct proposition, that, look, we could save a lot of money by not having any of these earmarks and we wouldn't do this research or maybe the State could do it or maybe somehow the farmers could get together in a cooperative and do it. But they haven't done it and the Federal Government has historically invested in long-term progress.
Now, very frankly, the best example is the space program. The space program has made an extraordinary contribution in the creation of jobs outside of the space program, and agricultural research colleges have done the same for farming and feeding the world. We honored with a gold medal a university professor who fed the world, billions.
So I ask my friends, this is $400,000. We will spend $400,000 in Baghdad in the next hour or so. I don't know what the Citizens Against Government Waste think of that, and I frankly don't think they think of this particular item. I understand that. They think generally we ought to stop wasting government money. I agree absolutely.
And if you think research in a product to turn it to pharmaceutical use, if you think that research in a product to turn it to better energy production, if you think research in a product that may be available to give us better protein production, then I think, my friends, Mr. Obey has said, we get the point. So I say this, and I'm laughing, this is a serious investment in good things for all people.
I hope that, notwithstanding the fact that he is my friend, that you will reject the gentleman's amendment, and I thank you for the time.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Maryland, and I appreciate the tone which this debate has been conducted in.
I heard some new things here that I didn't know before. This was a Maryland-initiated buyout for the tobacco industry, a buyout which limited the uses of tobacco afterwards. That's great. It should probably be the State of Maryland that funds this kind of research then, instead of the Federal Government.
Another thing I heard that I hadn't heard before is I guess we are moving toward tobacco-based ethanol or something of some such. My old car smokes enough, thank you. I'm not sure that's the way to go, but, in any event, there are limits to what you can do. The truth is you can make ethanol out of an old boot if you expend enough energy doing it, but it doesn't mean that we ought to fund research again and again, over and over and over. There are limits to what the taxpayer ought to do.
And let me just say, given that, I mean, we imposed another tax on tobacco just a day ago, and I think there are plenty of incentives there within the industry, be it the growing side or be it on the marketing side or whatever, to find alternative uses for tobacco. I think it ought to be left with them and not the Federal taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
The Chairman: It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 110-290.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the Ruminant Nutrition Consortium (MT, ND, SD, WY) grant.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise provided by this Act for "Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service--Research and Education Activities" (and the amount specified under such heading for special grants for agricultural research) are hereby reduced by $489,000.
The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I rise to prohibit funding for an earmark for the Ruminant Nutrition Consortium. This earmark would provide $489,000 for ruminant livestock production research, rangeland integration and other livestock resources.
A press release issued from this earmark in a previous year described it as an effort in the northern plains to further develop beef, dairy and sheep finish-feeding, which may lead to more jobs and more value- added agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, I know a little about cattle nutrition. I spent a lot of years on a ranch and a farm; and, in fact, I spent years on what we call bloat watch, where we'd sit at the edge of a field and have to watch while cattle, being the type of ruminant digestive system that they have, might bloat. And you'd have to run and stab the left side and hopefully relieve the suffering and relieve the certain death that comes.
I think this is an effort to relieve a little bloat that is here in this Agricultural appropriation bill and certainly in this budget.
There is simply no reason we should continue to fund research like this when we have, as mentioned already many times tonight, we have an account over at the Department of Agriculture that is for this purpose to dispense research dollars based on competition, where there are groups that are out there will compete for grants. We've told the Department of Agriculture to set up that program, and here we're saying it's not good enough. We're going to have that program; and then, in addition, we're going to give what essentially is a sole-source contract, single bidder. One university or one entity will get this earmark grant.
So it's simply not right.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Chairman: The gentlewoman from South Dakota is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin: Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset, the gentleman from Arizona said this is a sole-source contract to one entity and we already have an entity in USDA an agency that would make these grants based on competition.
This is not a sole-source contract. Four universities are involved in the consortium, and it's a competitive-based program.
So my colleague from Arizona's attempting to strike from the bill an extremely modest amount of funding for an outstanding program that's provided tremendous benefits to ranch families in one of the most remote and economically challenged corners of the United States.
The economy of this area of the country, western North and South Dakota and eastern Wyoming and Montana, is probably more dependent on animal agriculture than any other region of the country. It's beautiful rangeland and beautiful country, for that matter, but it isn't suitable to grow much other than grass.
We have dozens of small, rural communities in that area that rely almost completely on the ability of ranchers to raise cattle and sheep and bison; and I consider them to be among the best livestock producers in the country, given the climate they have to contend with as well.
This modest program, again funded at $489,000 in this year's bill, is a model of what we should be trying to fund in our appropriations bills. This program stretches a few dollars a very long way. It targets its efforts on addressing specific needs. The results of the program benefit all regions of the country and its collaborative effort among four highly respected universities: South Dakota State University, North Dakota State University, the University of Wyoming and Montana State University.
By distributing grants through a competitive awards process, let me repeat, the program is competitively awarded, the consortium promotes interstate cooperation and collaboration among ranchers, farmers, scientists and educators. Research addresses subject areas that are identified as needs by producers living in the target region, which means results are directly applicable to those producers; and I'm proud of my efforts to secure funding for this program.
Research funded by this consortium is developing new methods to add value to common grain and forage crops through the use of ruminant livestock, again cattle, sheep and bison. The projects enhance economic return and positively impact the regional environment by integrating rangeland, annual crops, and livestock resources.
Like many, if not all, of my colleagues, I carefully vet the projects for which I request funding to ensure that the program requests that I make are effective, important, valuable projects. I'm proud to put my name on this project and on the handful of other projects that I've supported in this bill. I know my State. I make every effort to know the needs of the farmers and ranchers I represent and ensure that we are spending their tax dollars wisely on programs that get results.
This is one of those programs, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it and rejecting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the gentlewoman mentioned that this is not a single-source contract or single-bid contract. I have the certification letter. It says I'm requesting funding for South Dakota State University in Brookings, South Dakota, to conduct research into production of environmental aspects of ruminant livestock production, et cetera, et cetera.
What used to be a competitive grant process is no longer with this earmark. We do have a competitive grant process at the Department of Agriculture. Now, this school may choose to have a competitive grant process beyond that, but we're using Federal dollars to give to one university to perhaps disburse among other universities.
If we don't like the process over at the Department of Agriculture, we should end it. We should say we're not going to fund that account anymore, that billion dollars we're giving you is not being disbursed equitably nor wisely. If we believe that, we should tell them. We'd save a lot of money and instead contract with others at the local level and just give it out.
But what we're doing here is we're funding both. We're having a process over there where a billion dollars is handed out competitively with some kind of process, merit-based process, and we're going around that and earmarking funds for specific institutions.
It simply seems wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin: May I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The Chairman: The gentlewoman from South Dakota has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin: Mr. Chairman, I will yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from California, but let me just say, he can point to the certification letter, but this is a consortium. There is a lead university, but it's a consortium of four.
With that, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. Farr: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
None of this money comes to my State or the universities in California involved in this consortia, but the State of California and other States, including Mr. Flake's own, are very interested in the outcome of this. I will tell you why. Because the rangelands of America are under great threat; and certainly in those rangelands in the rural areas, you raise cattle and sheep and bison, which we don't raise in our State.
But what this grant does, why you ought to be interested in it, is that they're learning new ways in which to graze. What they're doing is studying the effects of grazing herds of cattle, horses, sheep all together, because they eat different kinds of grass, and if you herd them essentially, move them on, you can preserve and bring back the native grasses, which is what we want to do.
Our cattlemen are very interested in this process, and this is the place to do that study. You get kind of a funny name for some of these things like this Ruminant Nutrition Consortium, but, in fact, it's a grant program. It is competitive, and the benefits of it are I think what keeps America strong. We've got to keep putting money into research dollars.
You know, if this was medical research, you wouldn't be criticizing it, but it's agricultural research, and it sounds funny. But, you know, you didn't take on my earmark, which was about lettuce and germ plasma. That's a pretty funny one, but it's very important if you like lettuce and you want to keep America ahead in the lettuce world.
So striking these few earmarks, by your time, trying to do this, fortunately, I think you are a great Member and you get an A for effort; but you also get A for 100 percent failure in being able to strike earmarks, because these are good earmarks.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, well, I should say I haven't been very successful here. I have noted before I have been beaten like a rented mule here quite a bit. But I must say the majority of Democrats did join me in actually striking an earmark a couple of weeks ago, one Member, and I had the occasion just today of one earmark that I had planned to strike was stricken by the Member himself before I could strike it.
So there are occasions when the Appropriations Committee, for whatever reason, I sympathize with them. They simply don't have the time to vet all of these. I would suggest, when you have 410 earmarks in one bill like this, you simply don't have a lot of time to vet them.
I know a little bit about cattle ranching. As I mentioned, I grew up on a cattle ranch. The gentleman mentioned the process of moving cattle from one cell to another. Actually, we started doing that on the F-Bar some 30 years ago and are still doing it to some extent.
The gentlelady mentioned this is a consortium, four universities, I believe, getting these research dollars, but it's earmarked for that consortium. That consortium could apply to the Department of Agriculture for universities like this. I suppose, cattle have four stomachs, four universities, only makes sense, but they can apply directly to the Department of Agriculture. They don't have to get earmark dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin: Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Flake: Is the gentlelady out of time?
The Chairman: The gentlewoman's time has expired.
The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. Flake: I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin: I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I too grew up on a farm. I have moved my share of cattle. We still have cattle on that farm, but it's in eastern South Dakota. It's not nearly as remote as the region that we are talking about. There are different types of grasses than the grasses we are talking about.
This is a consortium. I think it's very important we recognize the uniqueness of this particular area of the country.
Mr. Flake: I urge adoption of the amendment. We simply cannot afford everything. Let's give the taxpayer a break.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
The Chairman: It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in part B of House Report 110-290.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the Wood Utilization (OR, MS, NC, MN, ME, MI, ID, TN, AK, WV) grant.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise provided by this Act for "Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service--Research and Education Activities" (and the amount specified under such heading for special grants for agricultural research) are hereby reduced by $6,371,000.
The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 599, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $6,371,000 and reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount from being used to research wood utilization.
This is the second year in a row I have stood to address this earmark. It seems that not much has changed in the past year of wood utilization research. The committee provided precisely the same amount of funding last year, $6,371,000, for a variety of projects around the country that frankly seem designed to provide a solution in search of a problem.
This is another example of an earmark that has persisted for years that can only be terminated by Congress. The wood utilization program has received Federal funds since 1985 and has received more than $90 million in appropriations.
The United States is the world's largest producer of lumber and wood products used in residential construction and in commercial wood products such as furniture and containers.
The United States is also a leader in the pulp and paper business, producing about 34 percent of the world's pulp and 29 percent of the world's output in paper and paper board. About 1.3 million people are directly employed in the planning, growing, managing, and harvesting of trees and the production of wood and paper products in all 50 States.
The forest industry ranks among the top 10 manufacturing employers in about 42 States with an annual payroll of about $60 billion. This is an industry that dates back hundreds of years and has shown itself remarkably capable to adapt to change. It obviously continues to thrive today.
I sincerely question why the Federal Government needs to involve itself in a program that educates students about the utility of wood as a renewable resource.
What happened to the free market? What happened to common sense? I think we have had it out there for a while. After 1985, we have been doing this same earmark or this same program for the past several years, or it has been earmarked for the past several years. I would say it's time to reconsider the project.
I think the taxpayers may want to take us to the woodshed themselves for continuing to fund at a price of $6,371,000 this same earmark year after year after year.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Flake amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, the wood utilization consortium is made up of 10 universities in 10 different States around the country with varying missions.
I am familiar with the program mainly because of the involvement of North Carolina State University. NC State's contribution to the consortium is focused on wood machining and tooling. The programs help develop innovative production methods and use stronger, longer-lasting tools which are allowing U.S. manufacturers to maintain domestic production and compete in the global economy.
Such work is critical to support the U.S. furniture and lumber industries. North Carolina's furniture industry alone is estimated to contribute $10 billion to the economy.
North Carolina State University's contribution to increased manufacturing efficiency and global competitiveness within this major industry represents only a small component of the wood utilization program. Continued funding is a wise national investment.
I urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1½minutes to my colleague from North Carolina, who represents the main campus of North Carolina State University (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. Etheridge: I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, my friend from Arizona has already made a statement why this earmark ought to stay in here. It really is making a difference for the industry, and it's employing people. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
The funding for this wood utilization grant helps fund the Wood Machining and Tooling Research Program, as you have just heard. Part of it is really on the campus of NC State University, a land grant university. It has been matched more than dollar for dollar, every Federal dollar by private dollar.
This is not a giveaway program but, rather, one that has been designed to work to make the Southeastern furniture industry more competitive, as you have heard, in the global economy. This research program investigates and solves problems related to manufacturing tools used in the wood machining and manufacturing operations.
Other than Wood Machining and Tooling Research Program, there is no other Federal research program to support U.S. wood manufacturing and tooling companies who are competing with low-wage jobs on the other side of the world with other countries. It is only right to invest in the industries we have remaining in our rural parts of this country when outsourcing these industries overseas has hurt States all across America.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: I yield 1 minute to our colleague from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
(Mr. Michaud asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Michaud: Mr. Chairman, I want to give just one example why this investment is important to our Nation.
The Module Ballistic Protection System, developed at the University of Maine, is made of light, strong-as-metal wood composite panels that are inserted into tents to protect our soldiers over in Iraq and Afghanistan. This life-saving technology would not have been possible without the initial investment from the wood utilization funding.
In fact, this funding spurred advances in many different industries. It creates jobs and, in some cases, it will save American lives. This funding benefits the entire Nation.
I urge the rejection of the gentleman's amendment.
I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from Arizona's amendment.
Investment in Wood Utilization Research at these locations including the University of Maine supports education and economic development across our country.
The funding encourages students to pursue careers in advanced wood science and engineering at a time when international competition in these fields is growing. This type of research is important to a growing number of industrial applications and to our national economy.
At U-Maine, every dollar appropriated to the Center generates an additional $7 in economic output. The research has promoted important advances in fields as diverse and important as biofuels and advanced wood composites.
I want to highlight one program in particular that was born from this funding. The Modular Ballistic Protection System, developed at the U- Maine Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center, is a series of lightweight, strong-as-metal, wood composite panels that are inserted into tents to protect our soldiers from mortars and other incoming fire in Iraq and Afghanistan. This lifesaving technology would not have been possible without the initial investment from the Wood Utilization funding.
I appreciate the gentleman's intent but I believe it is misguided. In offering these kinds of amendments, the gentleman has frequently asked: what is the federal interest?
Well, in this case, it is clear. This is a project with national implications that helps our competitiveness, our industries, and our national defense. It is an investment that the federal government should be making so that America can lead the way in a variety of important R&D fields, create jobs, and in some cases, save American lives.
We do not pick any winners and losers here with this project--in fact, we all win with this research. So I urge the rejection of the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina has 1½minutes remaining.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. Blumenauer: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what my colleagues have said previously. I would take it from a slightly different angle. We are concerned about value added to American forest products.
I have watched in the Northwest the development of wood utilization research to deal with plywood and particle wood that are formaldehyde- free. It enables us to be able to provide a superior environmental product, adds greater value, protects the public and competes against foreign products where they are cutting corners. It wouldn't be possible without this type of partnership, from an environmental perspective, from an economic perspective, from a research perspective. I strongly urge rejection and look at that and suggest people look at how the $6 million has been spent in the past.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: I thank the gentleman for this most persuasive argument.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to our colleague from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. Allen: Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Research funded by this program has provided blast-proof wood hybrid materials to the Coast Guard and the Army to strengthen their facilities. In fact, some wood composites engineered by the University of Maine and developed by research conducted under this grant program are being used by the Army Corps of Engineers in Iraq, Afghanistan and worldwide.
This funding will allow the University of Maine to continue its strong support of traditional wood products production and enhance the competitiveness of our domestic industry.
I strongly oppose this amendment, and I would add simply that I don't know of any program that spins off more small businesses than this wood composite program at the University of Maine.
Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, we yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, nobody here is questioning the need for research. Every industry does it. Every industry has to do it to survive because of competition.
What I question here is why the taxpayer is spending $6 million every year on this same earmark for a $60 billion industry. This money goes to universities all over the country, so does research money from paper companies that are in the department next door.
There is research being funded. This is a pittance compared to the other research dollars that are being spent.
Thank goodness, private industry knows that they have to do it. But why does a taxpayer have to be on the hook again and again and again year after year after year for this same earmark for wood utilization?
Mr. Rogers of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the gentleman from Arizona's amendment to cut funding for the USDA grant for Wood Utilization Research.
For the past 15 years, Michigan State University and other universities have used grants for Wood Utilization Research to strengthen and improve the United States wood product industry. Jointly, these universities have addressed major problems in all of the forest regions of the United States. This collaboration has provided important advances that have helped to make our wood product industry more competitive around the globe, and our forests healthier here at home. Specifically, grant funding has been used to expand sustainable, environmentally sound forest practices and develop renewable wood-based materials.
The United States wood products industry is fragmented and composed of many small firms whose only access to advanced technology is through government or university laboratories. A major benefit of the USDA Wood Utilization grant has been the flexibility of universities to rapidly respond to critical regional or national research needs. In addition, the availability of grant funding has leveraged additional funds from state and private sources.
Michigan State University, located in Michigan's 8th District, continues to be a leader in this vital research. Today, they are performing research on wood materials that will shape the future of this industry for years to come. Projects include the conversion of wood residuals into biofuels, the development of environmentally safe preservative systems to lengthen the life of wood products (thus lessening the demand for harvest), the creation of wood materials that can substitute petroleum-based plastics, and the utilization of trees killed by emerald ash borer. Many of these projects will help reduce our nation's dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, create manufacturing and research jobs, and further strengthen our wood product industry.
Mr. Chairman, this research grant is critically important not only for Michigan State University and my district, but clearly for the United States wood product industry and our national energy needs. I thank the Committee for funding the grant, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous amendment.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the amendment.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Flake: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
The Chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 110- 290 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 2-minute votes.
