[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 144 (Wednesday, October 7, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H10528-H10539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2997, 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 799 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 799

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2997) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     conference report to its adoption without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit if applicable.

                              {time}  1045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate 
only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 
799.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 799 provides for consideration of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2997, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. 
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report on 
H.R. 2997 and against its consideration, and the rule provides that the 
previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervention 
of any motion except one hour of debate and one motion to recommit, if 
applicable.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report for 
the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations conference report. This 
is a good bill, one that went through the regular order. It is, in 
fact, the third appropriations conference report that this body will 
consider this year. I want to especially commend Subcommittee 
Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro and Ranking Member Jack Kingston, as well as 
the other subcommittee members, for their efforts in completing this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is one that normally doesn't get a lot of 
attention but, in reality, is one of the most important bills that we 
can pass. I wish the allocation, Mr. Speaker, for this bill, quite 
frankly, was higher than it is because there is a great need for the 
programs that make up this bill. This conference report funds the 
following areas at the Department of Agriculture: public health 
programs, rural communities, agriculture research, animal health and 
marketing programs, and conservation. Most importantly, this bill funds 
domestic and international antihunger and nutrition programs, programs 
that literally put food in the mouths of hundreds of millions of hungry 
people here at home and around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is $2.7 billion more than last year and $325 
million more than the President's request, a 13 percent increase over 
last year's bill. Following my opening statement, we will hear from my 
friends on the other side, and I expect that they will talk about how 
this bill spends too much money and that this increase is simply 
unnecessary, especially during these difficult economic times.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, this increase is needed now more than ever. Just 
look at where the increases in this bill are targeted: to the areas of 
nutrition, international food assistance, and food

[[Page H10529]]

and drug safety. Simply, these increases go to protect our food supply 
and to provide food for those who either cannot afford it or do not 
have access to it. It is unconscionable to me that anyone can complain 
about helping people in need during these tough economic times.
  Today, there are over 36 million low-income individuals who rely on 
the SNAP program, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. The sad 
fact is that this is a record number of people who are currently 
relying on this safety net program. This bill provides over $58 billion 
for the SNAP program, an increase of more than $4 billion from 2009.
  WIC is funded at $7.2 billion, an increase of almost $400 million. 
This increase will provide up to 9.6 million women, infants, and 
children help with a healthy pregnancy and a healthy start in life.
  The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, a program that provides 
nutritious food to low-income women, infants, children, and elderly 
citizens who all struggle with rising food costs, is funded at $171 
million. That is $11 million more than 2009 and $9 million more than 
the President's request.
  Finally, the Child Nutrition Programs, school meals and snacks, 
receive almost $17 billion, $1.9 billion above the 2009 levels.
  Hunger is a real problem in America, and this bill provides funding 
that keeps the safety net intact. Look at one of the more affluent 
areas in this country, Fairfax County in Virginia. According to a 
recent Washington Post article, Fairfax churches and nonprofit 
organizations report a 39 percent increase in food assistance in the 
fourth quarter of 2008 when compared with the fourth quarter of 2007. 
Let me repeat that, a 39 percent increase. ``Almost half of the 
respondents reported helping families that had never asked for aid 
before, many of them former middle class residents now unemployment or 
facing foreclosure.'' I will insert this article into the Record at the 
end of my statement.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just one example of how hunger is creeping into 
areas of the country that are not used to seeing hunger. Food banks, 
WIC clinics, and SNAP processors are the ones providing food for people 
who simply cannot make ends meet. Yet some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle say we cannot afford to properly fund these 
programs, insinuating that we should turn our backs on these people who 
are in desperate need.
  I, for one, make no apologies for these increases in food and 
nutrition programs. We have a moral obligation to step up to the plate 
to help the most vulnerable people during these difficult times.

  Internationally, the need is just as great. This bill provides 
critical funding for the Food for Peace program and McGovern-Dole Food 
for Education program. Overall, there is $1.89 billion provided for 
international food aid programs. That is an increase of $564 million 
over 2009.
  The P.L. 480 Food for Peace Title II grants program receives $1.69 
billion, which is $464 million above 2009. And a program close to my 
heart, the McGovern-Dole program, is more than doubled from the 
previous year. In 2010, this important program will receive $209.5 
million, $10 million more than President Obama's request and $109.5 
million more than 2009 levels.
  Mr. Speaker, for too long this country has underfunded international 
food and nutrition programs. This bill is changing that course. We are 
putting more money up front for development, providing assistance 
before it becomes an emergency that we and the rest of the world have 
to respond to. This is appropriate and necessary, and I applaud 
Chairwoman DeLauro for working to right the misguided policies of the 
previous administration. I would add that investing in food and 
nutrition programs overseas and investing in smart development is in 
our national security interests. Taking a global leadership role in 
combating hunger and fighting global poverty I think is something that 
wins us the hearts and minds of people all over the world, and I want 
to again commend Chairwoman DeLauro for her leadership.
  I am also pleased that there is more than $33 million for eradication 
of the Asian longhorn beetle, an increase of more than $13 million over 
last year. This funding will help USDA in their efforts to help in 
identifying and eradicating the infestation of this pest. While more 
funding is needed, and I will be asking the USDA for additional 
emergency funding for this effort, the funding included in this bill is 
welcome and I appreciate its inclusion.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to address the tragic bombing of the 
United Nations World Food Program offices in Islamabad, Pakistan. The 
World Food Program benefits from the international food aid programs 
that are funded in this bill. WFP is an excellent partner and is on the 
front lines of many of the efforts to combat hunger and starvation 
around the world. Josette Sheeran and everyone at WFP do an excellent 
job, and I am pleased to be able to work with them as they work to end 
hunger around the world.
  I want to convey my deepest condolences and sympathies to the family 
and friends and colleagues of the WFP staff who were killed in 
Pakistan. My thoughts and prayers are also with those who were wounded 
and injured in the bombing attack, and we hope for their full recovery. 
The bombing underscores the often dangerous situations in which the 
World Food Program and so many other humanitarian relief workers find 
themselves. And I, for one, can only thank them for their important and 
too often unrecognized service to humanity.

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 29, 2009]

                       Whole Foods to Food Banks

                            (By Annie Gowen)

       The Germantown woman was loading boxes of food from the 
     Manna food bank into a shiny sport-utility vehicle one recent 
     afternoon when she was approached by a donor dropping off 
     food.
       ``What group are you with?'' the donor asked the woman, who 
     promptly burst into tears. With her Toyota Sequoia and 
     quilted Vera Bradley bag, she had been mistaken for a 
     volunteer--rather than a client waiting to take home a bag of 
     potatoes.
       ``I'm a mother of four just trying to feed my kids,'' the 
     woman sobbed to the donor, who was taken aback, then 
     sympathetic.
       Such awkward scenes are playing out frequently at food 
     pantries and other charities across the region as they 
     struggle to help the still upward-spiraling number of 
     formerly middle-class people knocking on their doors.
       For the charities, the surge in demand has tested their 
     resourcefulness--and sometimes their patience. Not only must 
     they stock millions of pounds of additional food in bigger 
     warehouses, but they also must adopt fresh tactics to help 
     the newly needy, who can be more bewildered, more emotional 
     and more selective than their traditional clients.
       One intake volunteer at Food for Others in Fairfax County, 
     for example, has learned that the formerly affluent won't 
     wait outside in line for food at evening neighborhood 
     giveaways, lest they be spotted.
       ``We have more people than ever coming here thinking they'd 
     never ever be here,'' said Amy Ginsburg, executive director 
     of Manna Food Center in Montgomery County. Manna, along with 
     most food area pantries, requires people to prove by income 
     that they need assistance.
       The group is moving into a 12,000-square-foot warehouse in 
     Gaithersburg on Oct. 5 to meet the growing need. Manna gave 
     away 3.1 million pounds of food to 102,519 Montgomery County 
     residents last fiscal year, up from 2.1 million pounds the 
     year before. They've increased food drives, and cash 
     donations have kept pace.
       Manna's workers and volunteers try to make the experience 
     as dignified as possible for everyone, helping clients load 
     their cars and handing out juice boxes and pretzels to 
     families waiting in increasingly longer lines. On a recent 
     morning, residents dressed in pressed khakis waited for boxes 
     of fresh produce, meat and canned goods alongside those in 
     dirty T-shirts.
       ``Not having enough money for food is a bizarre, foreign 
     experience'' for the new needy, Ginsburg explained. ``They're 
     still getting over the shock.''
       Ginsburg and others running local charities expect the 
     number of residents seeking help to continue to rise even as 
     the economy improves. Jobless numbers are increasing, they 
     point out, while severance checks and unemployment benefits 
     are running out.
       Fairfax found in a recent survey of 89 churches and 
     nonprofit organizations that 32,044 households received food 
     assistance in the last quarter of 2008, a 39 percent increase 
     from the previous year's fourth quarter. Almost half of the 
     respondents reported helping families that had never asked 
     for aid before--many of them former middle-class residents 
     now unemployed or facing foreclosure.
       Wanda Moloney, client relations manager at Loudoun 
     Interfaith Relief, which served 56,000 residents last year, 
     said her group gives food to 100 new families a week. 
     Increasingly, Interfaith volunteers from some of Loudoun's 
     most affluent neighborhoods find themselves packing boxes for 
     their friends and neighbors.
       Nobody knows what to say.

[[Page H10530]]

       ``You can see it in the eye contact,'' Moloney said. ``The 
     tears say it all.''
       Barbara Curtis, 61, said that the experience of getting 
     groceries from the food pantry was ``startling at first.'' 
     She and her husband, Tripp, lost their sprawling Loudoun home 
     this year after he became ill and was unable to work. With 
     five children at home, their descent from a comfortable 
     middle-class life seemed to happen overnight. ``It really let 
     me see how vulnerable we all are,'' Curtis said.
       Terry Wilson, 43, a floral designer, also sought help in 
     Loudoun after he was bumped from full time to part time at 
     work and lost his benefits. But it wasn't easy. The first 
     time he pulled open the door and took in the crowd in the 
     waiting room, he turned around and walked out.
       ``It was like, `Whoa . . . I can't do this,' '' he recalled 
     Wednesday as he picked up food for the second time. But then 
     he realized having the groceries could help him shift money 
     to his utility bill and his car payment. ``Everyone else is 
     doing it, and times are tough. Let's suck it up and see what 
     happens.''
       Out in the Manna parking lot, the Germantown woman--who was 
     visiting the food bank for the second time and did not want 
     her name used to spare her children embarrassment--was 
     inspecting her food allotment with the zeal of a soccer mom 
     at Whole Foods. She turned to Manna for help after her 
     husband refinanced their home into a costly subprime mortgage 
     and then moved out. She has been able to get the mortgage 
     modified, but her finances remain precarious.
       She checked the expiration date on a carton of soy milk, 
     unscrewed the lid of a jar of organic peanut butter to make 
     sure it was sealed and read the label on a tube of ground 
     turkey. The turkey did not pass muster, and she politely 
     returned it to a Manna staffer. ``I don't know what's in 
     it,'' she explained.
       ``It's a double-edged sword,'' she said. ``You can't go 
     without food, but certain foods at Manna, no way I'm going to 
     feed my kids. It's kind of snotty.'' She rejoiced in a big 
     bag of day-old bagels, sport drinks and doughnuts, treats she 
     could no longer afford to buy her sons.
       At times, this changing face of need has sparked moments of 
     confusion and discomfort for those who are trying to help.
       Christine Lucas, executive director of the Arlington Food 
     Assistance Center, said she is often asked by volunteers and 
     donors about the number of clients driving fancy cars. (A 
     well-dressed couple who declined to be interviewed was there 
     recently, putting their sacks into a Cadillac.) Lucas 
     responds that it could be an employer's car or a family 
     hanging onto its last asset.
       Or it could be the formerly middle-class mom with Calvin 
     Klein sunglasses perched atop her head who said she was going 
     to have to search Epicurious.com for recipes that use black 
     beans because the pantry had given her so many cans.
       Appearances can be deceiving, as Debbie Lane and her two 
     children discovered when they drove out to an affluent 
     neighborhood in Chantilly to deliver $200 worth of school 
     supplies to a needy family. Lane, of Fairfax, said her kids 
     had offered to reuse some of their school supplies from last 
     year so that they could contribute to the back-to-school 
     drive, organized by the food pantry Our Daily Bread.
       ``My son, who is 8, said, `Mom, if this is the neighborhood 
     we're dropping these things off in, I think we should turn 
     our car around,' '' Lane recalled. ``It was a great segue for 
     me to talk about what poverty does and does not look like.''
       But even she was surprised at the size and scope of ``this 
     palatial home with two brand-new expensive cars in the 
     driveway. I was really grappling with this. I was thinking, 
     `This is crazy.' '' She later learned that what she had tried 
     to explain to her kids was true: The family that needed the 
     supplies was renting rooms in the home's basement and had 
     recently seen its income drop when the mother died of cancer.
       The Germantown mother of four said she knew why she'd been 
     mistaken for a volunteer by the donor dropping off food--it 
     was her car.
       ``Because I have the [Sequoia], she thought I was doing the 
     same thing she was, I guess,'' the woman speculated. She 
     watched the donor drive away with a mix of envy and sadness, 
     remembering what it was like ``to be normal.''
       ``What a glorious feeling . . . to be able to give to other 
     people,'' she said. ``It is a better feeling to give than to 
     receive. But sometimes you have to receive.''

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts for yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I come before you today deeply concerned by this 
conference agreement. This legislation that was originally brought to 
the House was offered under a closed rule. Throughout this 
appropriations season, the Democrat majority took unprecedented steps 
to silence both the minority and their own Democrat colleagues by 
offering all appropriations bills under closed rule. This has 
consistently eliminated the ability for Members to speak up for how 
their constituents believe their money should be spent.
  This is not the way the House should be operating, and we want to 
express again our concern about this and will be doing that throughout 
our time in discussing the rule this morning.
  I will urge my colleagues to vote not only against the rule but 
against the previous question.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I will reserve my time at this point in time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Grandfather community 
for yielding me the time.
  I rise with a great deal of concern, Mr. Speaker, for what is taking 
place here. My friend from Worcester has talked about the commitment to 
nutrition programs. I share his concern about nutrition, child 
nutrition especially. It is a very high priority. And anyone, anyone 
who tries to characterize those of us who are opposed to this 
conference report as being opposed to child nutrition is totally off 
base.
  I was just speaking to my good friend Mr. Conaway, who is a member of 
the Agriculture Authorization Committee, and he points to the fact that 
while we look at this conference report, every single line item, every 
single line item has had a plus-up, an increase, and it brings to that 
total a 14 percent increase.
  Now, Mr. Conaway has reminded me that we can have that strong 
commitment, as we do in a bipartisan way, to nutrition. There are other 
areas where cuts can be made. And so again, once again, the tired old 
argument that somehow those of us who are Republicans want to throw 
children out in the street and have them starve is a nonstarter. So, 
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to continue with that kind of 
argument.
  Now, there are other concerns that exist. We have the 14 percent 
increase with this measure. We have something known as air-dropping, 
which is a violation of House rules, and this rule waives a measure 
which provides an addition of items that were never considered by this 
House or considered by our colleagues in the other body in the Senate. 
That is described as a scope violation. It means that neither House 
considered it and yet the conferees came together and without a single 
hearing, without any kind of deliberation, they just dropped a couple 
of provisions into the conference report.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what is leading us to raise concern that is 
bipartisan on the fact that this House is not taking the amount of time 
that it should to look at legislation, and this came to the forefront 
on June 26 of this year.
  On June 26 at 3 in the morning, my Rules colleagues and I were 
sitting upstairs in the Rules Committee and my friend, Mr. McGovern, 
offered the motion that would allow us to move ahead with the cap-and-
trade bill. As he was reading that motion, Mr. Speaker, as he was 
reading that motion, I had dropped on my lap at 3 in the morning a 300-
page amendment to the cap-and-trade bill. No one on that committee had 
had an opportunity to look at it. We know that most Members of the 
House had not read it. What did it lead to? It led to our very, very 
strong level of degree of outrage, and it led our minority leader to 
use a great deal of time, taking 1 hour to actually walk through that 
300-page amendment. The by-product of that, Mr. Speaker, has been 
outrage across this country.
  I have spent most of my career here focused on process. I believe 
process is substance. But many of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, when I talk about process, make it very clear that they and 
their constituents have their eyes glaze over. But guess what, Mr. 
Speaker? The American people understand when you don't take the time to 
deliberate and read and look at legislation.
  Now, I will admit that in Republican Congresses, we have waived the 
3-day layover requirement. In fact, in the 109th Congress, on 40 
occasions we waived the 3-day layover requirement. But, Mr. Speaker, we 
were told that in

[[Page H10531]]

this new Congress there would be a better way and they would change 
those ways.
  In the 110th Congress, this new majority waived the 3-day layover 
requirement 43 times. And so far in this Congress, and we are 40 
percent of the way through this Congress, Mr. Speaker, the 3-day 
layover requirement has been waived 22 times already, and we are only 
40 percent through this Congress.

                              {time}  1100

  And so this new majority has said we are not going to allow for the 
reading of legislation. We're not going to allow for an adequate amount 
of time. We're going to move quickly, without letting Members look at 
or the American people look at legislation to the floor.
  So what is it that happened? A bipartisan group, led by our colleague 
from Washington, Mr. Baird, our colleague from Texas, Mr. Culberson, 
came together with legislation saying that there should, in fact, be a 
process that requires that that 3-day layover be maintained. Now, there 
was no opportunity provided by the majority to allow for consideration 
of this, and so it led my very good friend from Oregon, Mr. Walden, to 
launch a discharge petition, a discharge petition which, at this 
moment, has 181 signatories. A bipartisan group saying what we should 
do is, we should say that Members should look at legislation before 
it's considered.
  And on this conference report, the notion of air-dropping measures in 
is just a further example of not allowing the membership to look at 
legislation. My colleague from Grandfather community, Ms. Foxx, is 
going to move to defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker. When she 
does that, she is going to be seeking to make in order the bipartisan 
Baird-Culberson resolution, which states that we must have 72 hours to 
look at legislation before it is considered. It's a commonsense 
proposal that the American people understand and that this membership 
understands.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to join with Ms. 
Foxx and Mr. Conaway, and the wide range of people who are working on 
this, led by Mr. Walden, who's here on the floor and is going to have 
some very, very interesting numbers and figures to show to buttress 
this argument that we're making here. So I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question so that we'll be able to allow this 
measure to move forward so that the commonsense idea of saying we 
should look at things before we vote on them is, in fact, able to 
prevail.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from California is correct when he says that his side 
was guilty of air-dropping provisions into conference reports. I 
remember one time being up in the Rules Committee when a Department of 
Defense bill came before the committee. And after the conferees had 
finished all their work, all of a sudden this kind of mysterious 
language appeared providing immunity to drug companies that produced 
drugs that were not safe. And the reality was, Mr. Speaker, that they 
did that after the conference had finished up.
  In this case here it's very, very different. In this case here, the 
child nutrition reauthorization, a bill we had hoped to have already 
done by now, is not completed. And if, in fact, this language was not 
put in here to extend expiring child nutrition authorization programs--
and let me just kind of tell people what that is. It's things like 
school breakfasts and school lunches and after-school meals for kids 
who otherwise wouldn't get access to meals or nutrition.
  So that language, which was agreed to by the authorizers, was put 
into this bill. Now, if we want to have an argument about process, 
fine. But the reality is here: if you did not do this right now, these 
programs would expire. And I don't know of anybody, maybe on your side 
they do, but I know for the majority on this side, people do not want 
those programs to expire because people depend on them.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And let me just say, I 
will say to my friend that he must not have listened to my opening 
remarks. The notion of pointing the finger to the other side of the 
aisle and somehow saying that we have an interest in seeing child 
nutrition deteriorate is outrageous, and it should not be said on this 
House floor.
  And I will say this, too. If you look at the number of times that 
that 3-day layover requirement was waived when we were in the majority, 
as I said, 40 times in the 109th Congress. And you promised a better 
way on the majority side of this aisle. And what has happened is you've 
bested us by doing it 44 times in the 110th Congress and so far 22 
times, 40 percent of this. And I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. And I do think 
we have bested you in the area of responding to a need that, quite 
frankly, when your party was in control here, these areas were 
underfunded. And the deal, this is about school breakfasts and school 
lunches and after-school snacks for kids who otherwise wouldn't get it. 
That's what this is about. That's what we are debating here.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
his leadership on nutritional issues. Clearly, we can't do enough, I 
think, for the people who need assistance in this country. And I rise 
in very strong support of this conference report that focuses, not only 
on nutritional issues, but focuses on the need for food safety in this 
country, and certainly, the need for our farmers and our agricultural 
industry.
  And I want to talk specifically about dairy farmers. And what this 
bill does among other things, many other good things, is it 
appropriates $350 million for dairy farmers. Now, I can tell you that 
in my district in upstate New York, dairy farmers have been hit 
extremely hard. We see the cost of 100 weight of milk about the same 
price, about $10 or $11, the same that it was 20 or 25 years ago. Yet 
the cost of feed, the cost of fuel, the cost of everything has gone up 
dramatically, and we see this real difficult time.
  And I talk about this all the time. I did a town hall meeting in a 
place called Waterville, New York, and it was a dairy farming 
community. And I thought we were going to talk about health care, but 
that wasn't the most important issue to these dairy farmers. The most 
important issue was the cost of milk and the difficulty that they're 
having staying in business. And to see a grown man, a farmer who's 
worked his whole life, worked very hard, stand up and cry because he 
isn't sure he's going to be able to hold on to his farm is the kind of 
thing that we're up against.
  So I think that the fact--and I want to compliment the chairlady, Ms. 
DeLauro, for the work she's done and the way that we've come forward to 
put $350 million--again, it's not going to save the entire dairy 
industry, but it certainly is going to help dairy farmers, and they 
need it at this time. We need to continue this. We need to continue to 
move because dairy farming in America is not just an industry. It's not 
just a business, but it's a way of life, and we need to do everything 
we can, and I strongly support this conference report. And I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) blames Republicans. I mean we're used to it. We're being 
blamed for everything. And yet, you all are in the majority. You have 
the votes to do whatever you want to do. You've been in the majority 
for the last 3 years. So I don't understand why it's our fault that 
these programs haven't been authorized at the appropriate levels for 
the last 3 years.
  I would like to yield now 4 minutes to my colleague from Texas, Mr. 
Conaway.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady for giving 
me some time to speak.
  First off, I want to brag on the majority. The gentlelady and the 
previous speaker and I talked about the 72-hour rule, the concept of a 
bill being available for not only Members to read but also constituents 
to read. This one's

[[Page H10532]]

been available longer than 72 hours. And as far as I can tell, the sun 
came up in the east this morning and the world's continuing to turn, so 
this system can, in fact, work under a rational process that allows 72 
hours to expire before something is voted on.
  So I want to brag on the majority for conducting themselves in the 
way that they said they would do throughout the 2006 campaign. And now, 
at least with this one narrow example, they have shown that the 72-hour 
rule will, in fact, work.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote against the 
rule, to vote against this bill itself. I represent an agricultural 
district. I have a rural district in Texas. I represent 14 percent of 
the land mass of Texas. It is rural and it is agricultural. I'm going 
to vote against this bill because of the reckless increases in spending 
that are being proposed or being pushed forward. None of us are for 
hunger. None of us are for children getting up and going to school 
hungry. That's not what this is about.
  This bill, with a 28 percent increase over what we spent in 2008, a 
14 percent increase in what we spent over 2009, plus an $8 billion 
stimulus infusion of cash, is reckless, simply reckless. We can't 
afford it. This will contribute to a $1.3 trillion deficit for 2010. We 
will have to borrow all $1.3 trillion.
  Now, what that does in effect is it fixes today's problems for just 
2010. It doesn't fix anything, but it addresses the problems for 2010. 
The interest on that debt will be paid for by every generation every 
year of their lives. They will not pay it back. We will not pay it 
back. So what we are saying is with respect to the interest on that 
debt is that future generations will have to tax themselves to pay for 
that. Those are resources that they will not have available to deal 
with the hungry and the hungered in their generations because, as Jesus 
Christ said, the poor you will always have with us. There will be 
hunger in this world as long as this world exists. And what we are 
doing today with this bill is contributing to the irresponsible 
resource reallocation from future generations to today's problems.
  Both sides have made an art form over the last four years of taking 
future resources to fix today's problems. It's been wrong in the past. 
It's wrong today. And I would urge my colleagues to vote against this 
rule and against this bill when it comes up later on this afternoon.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just clarify for the record, 
because I think maybe there is a difference here between what some of 
us are saying on this side of the aisle compared to what some of my 
friends are saying on the other side of the aisle.
  I don't believe a hungry child can wait. I don't believe we can put 
that problem off till next year or 5 years or 10 years down the road. 
And in fact, I would argue that investing and making sure that that 
child gets the proper nutrition and the proper food early on in their 
lifetime will probably save us a whole bunch of money in terms of 
health care costs and lost learning opportunities and so many other 
things that come as a result of people being hungry and not getting 
enough to eat.
  So we don't have time to wait. And one of the reasons we are trying 
to tackle health care, Mr. Speaker, is to try to get this deficit and 
this debt under control, something, by the way, that when Bill Clinton 
left office, he left historic surpluses. After a few years of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle, we have historic deficits, and 
now we're trying to dig ourselves out of this ditch.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, the Chair of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Ms. DeLauro.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I am 
delighted to present the 2010 Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration 
Appropriations Conference Report.
  I wanted to note that this is the earliest that an Agriculture 
appropriations conference report has come to the floor of this House 
since 1999. In fact, we have been busy all year. The subcommittee has 
held seven hearings so far, including two hearings with the Secretary 
of Agriculture, a hearing with the Acting Commissioner of the Food and 
Drug Administration, another with the Inspector General of the 
Department of Health and Human Services. We had a hearing on domestic 
nutrition programs, a hearing on the equivalency process for imported 
meat and poultry. We also had a hearing at which Members discussed 
their priorities.
  This report before us is then the culmination of this process. It 
focuses on several key areas, supporting agricultural research, 
investing in rural communities. My colleague from Texas was just up on 
his feet, and he represents a rural part of Texas. Well, in fact, what 
we did was increase resources for rural America, and I'm sure that that 
includes his portion in Texas. He ought to think twice about voting 
against a bill which is going to help his constituents. And that's 
probably true of agricultural research as well.
  We also focused on protecting the public health, bolstering nutrition 
programs and food aid, and conserving our natural resources. I would 
just say that the report proposes investments in these priorities and 
the agencies that can help us to meet them while making specific and 
sensible budgets cuts where feasible. The appropriations bill on 
Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration for 2010 provides for 
$23 billion in funding. It is a 13 percent increase over the 2009 
levels, the reason being, as our colleague from New York said a moment 
ago, because there was an additional $350 million put in this bill in 
order to deal with the crisis amongst dairy farmers in this country.
  Whether you are from the East Coast, the way I am, the middle of the 
country, where others are, or the West coast, dairy farmers are in 
critical difficulty. Now, if we propose not to do that, let's close it 
down. Let's close the dairy industry down, because, you know what? You 
can't stop milking cows just because the prices are low. You have to 
continually do it. And our small dairy farmers are going under. We also 
made responsible investments across the board and, yes, in fact, we did 
make cuts in programs. We made a significant investment in agricultural 
research, $1.2 billion for the Agriculture Research Service, $1.3 
billion for the National Institute for Food and Agriculture.

                              {time}  1115

  Among the key programs that were funded was the Agriculture and Food 
Research Initiative.
  In addition, the report seeks to create new opportunities for growth 
in the Nation's small-town economies, rural America. The conference 
agreement provides $173 million for section 502 Guaranteed Single 
Family Housing Loans and $40 million for the Renewable Energy Program 
to focus in on renewable energy projects so that rural communities can 
take advantage of this effort.
  I also might say again to my colleague from Texas who was standing up 
there, the administration proposed to cut the Farm and Ranchland 
Program, the Wildlife Habitat Program, and several other very good 
conservation programs. The Resources Conservation Agency development 
offices, I would bet he's got those issues in his district.
  Well, you know what we did? We restored that funding because those 
communities need to have these resources in order to succeed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. We did provide a substantial increase for the Food and 
Drug Administration, $306 million, to conduct more inspections of 
domestic and foreign food and medical products. We fully fund the 
administration's request for the Food Safety and Inspection Service at 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We provided money for them the 
first time. Why? So that in fact we can make sure that our food supply 
is safe and that youngsters are not dying from an E. coli infection or 
hurt by an E. coli infection, like we saw on the front page of The New 
York Times this past week, or we're getting a tainted product from 
China which puts people in this country at risk.
  The bill provides $392 million for an increase for the WIC program to 
help those hit hardest by the current economic crisis. And, yes, per 
the request of the committees in both the House and the Senate and the 
Democratic and Republican members of those committees, the bill extends 
the important

[[Page H10533]]

and expiring child nutrition programs such as School Lunch, School 
Breakfast, and other programs.
  But, you know, if you had been here several years ago the way I was, 
a number of years ago, you know where the other side of the aisle comes 
from, because there was an attempt at that time to say, Let's end the 
School Lunch program.
  Yes, nutrition is critical. This is a bill that deserves to be 
extended, and that was its purpose in putting it with the agricultural 
bill. It is self-contained, no additional money, and it was not air-
dropped. It was not air-dropped.
  These programs continue our longstanding commitment to international 
aid, to fighting hunger. It works to conserve America's natural 
resources, sustain our national priorities. It includes $350 million 
for dairy assistance; $290 million to the Secretary of Agriculture to 
supplement producers' income; $60 million for purchasing surplus cheese 
and other dairy products to distribute to food banks. It continues to 
protect our Nation's families and our farmers from the dangers that are 
posed by unsafe, processed poultry imports from overseas.
  Taken as a whole, I believe we have crafted a responsible agriculture 
legislation. It alleviates short-term suffering, encourages long-term 
growth, invests in our future, reflects our priorities.
  Support this rule.
  Ms. FOXX. I appreciate very much the sympathy and concern from our 
friends from urban areas for our dairy farmers and our farming 
interest. I come from a rural district.
  I represent a rural district and many dairy farmers. I grew up 
milking a cow. I understand that cows have to be milked. I know they 
can't wait. But what we've done to hurt dairy farmers in this country 
is we're putting them out of business because we've driven up the costs 
of doing business.
  We have an EPA that is totally out of control in this country and 
that has harassed our farmers, and particularly dairy farmers, to the 
point where we have almost driven them completely out of business.
  Yes, dairy farmers are hurting right now, and we need to do something 
to help them; but we could do a lot to help them by reducing the cost 
of their doing business with the ridiculous rules and regulations that 
we've put on them.
  I also would like to say that we need to be setting priorities in 
this Congress, and that's one of the main problems that we have with 
the majority in charge right now.
  I'd like to now yield 4 minutes to my colleague who also understands 
rural United States' needs, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for 
her leadership consistently in this House for common sense. I'm glad 
that she understands agriculture like some of us do in the West as 
well.
  I want to talk today about the rule and the rules of this House. As 
my colleague from California said pretty clearly, for too long we have 
had a process that's been followed in this House, regardless of who was 
in control of this House, to make sure that the people and the press 
and we politicians have a chance to read the bills before they're voted 
on.
  Consistently, when the will of the majority has been exercised, we 
have waived the House rules of the 72-hour requirement. We need to 
change that, and we can do it on a bipartisan basis.
  My colleagues, Mr. Baird and Mr. Culberson, have legislation, H. Res. 
554, introduced in June, to change the House rules to require 72 hours 
for bills like this, the so-called ``stimulus,'' to be put on the 
Internet for the people, the press, the public, people affected, and 
us, to actually read them.
  Now this bill was 1,073 pages. It cost $787 billion. And we were 
allowed 12 hours to consider it. This legislation is the national 
energy tax, the cap-and-trade bill. It's 1,420 pages, 16\1/2\ hours to 
review, and it cost $846 billion.
  Now, this House recently passed a resolution saying that on the Ag 
appropriations conference report, the issue before us at the moment, 
that we should have 72 hours to consider it before it's voted on. That 
hasn't always been the case on all these rules. As I mentioned, on the 
national energy tax, on the stimulus, even the health care bill before 
it came to the Energy and Commerce Committee, 1,026 pages, we had 14 
hours and 43 minutes to consider.
  You know, it's kind of interesting. If you go back to the beginning 
of our country, and I just put it in comparison, the Declaration of 
Independence, same type-face size, nine pages, 4 days; the entire 
United States Constitution, 82 days, 24 pages; Bill of Rights, 57 days 
and 3 pages. Yet one-sixth of the economy, we're given, what, 14 hours 
and 43 minutes for health care in committee; 16\1/2\ hours for the 
national energy tax, 12 hours for the stimulus.
  It's time to change how our House operates. It's time for the Rules 
Committee to bring forward H. Res. 544. And since that doesn't appear 
to happen, that's why I filed the discharge petition No. 6 to bring 
forward House Resolution 544 so that we can improve this process and 
gain some credibility with the folks back home who think we actually 
should have time to read these bills, that they should have time to 
read these bills, including bills like the Ag conference report.
  Now, 182 members, as of yesterday, have signed this petition. It only 
takes 218. We have six Democrats who have signed it. Yet there are 35 
Democrats who have cosponsored the underlying resolution, but have not 
signed the petition.
  I know the Speaker has been supportive of this similar process of 
changing the House rules a couple of sessions ago. It is a bipartisan 
calling. It is difficult when you're in the majority to change the 
rules that affect how you operate. But isn't that what real reform is 
all about? It's saying, For once, we will stand up; we will listen to 
the people; we will change the rules; and we will have a more open and 
transparent process, which should lead to better policy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WALDEN. And it is a wonderful cleanser, if you will, to a process 
that, frankly, has lost most credibility among the people of America. 
You see, they think we should read the bills, and they think we ought 
to understand them. Moreover, they now, in this modern age of Internet 
communications, believe we should post them on the Internet so that 
they, the public, the taxpayers, the people writing the checks to pay 
for this government, can have an understanding of what is in there.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to vote against the previous 
question and to allow us to move forward on reform and transparency in 
this House.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 30 seconds. I find it interesting the 
gentleman's not talking about the bill before us, which, as he failed 
to mention, was actually filed last Wednesday. It's been over a week 
that people have had access to this bill.
  He's right about one thing: we are changing the way we do business in 
this House compared to when the Republicans were in charge. We are 
changing our priorities. When they were in charge, they were talking 
about immunity for big drug companies, talking about corporate tax 
breaks. What we're talking about in this bill is making sure that our 
kids have breakfasts and lunches and good nutritional programs; making 
sure that our farmers get the food they deserve.
  I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, before I start, let me say that although I represent New 
York State, I want to make sure everybody understands that agriculture 
is the largest business in New York State, most of that obviously 
taking place up in eastern-western New York along the border. And we do 
know our cows.
  A lot of debate on this bill is about food safety and the need to 
ensure that the products we consume are as safe as they can be.
  I want to pause a minute here to respond to some of the comments that 
were made in the Senate just this last week, to which I take very 
strong exception. As many of you know, or may not--I'd like you to 
know--I've introduced legislation that would phase out

[[Page H10534]]

seven classes of antibiotics that are currently approved for 
nontherapeutic use in animal agriculture.
  We held a hearing on the preservation of antibiotics for medical 
treatment last spring, which, for the first time, the new 
administration acknowledged that the issue of overuse of antibiotics in 
farm animals is serious and they are seeking a solution. The Rules 
Committee held a hearing on this on July 13 to gather testimony from 
the administration, the private sector, and the scientific community.
  Now why is this bill necessary? Well, an estimated 90,000 Americans 
die every year from infections that are increasingly resilient against 
the most powerful antibiotics in the world. Seventy percent of those 
infections are associated with bacterial pathogens displaying 
resistance to at least one antimicrobial drug. And as much as 70 
percent of all the antibiotics--I can't stress this enough--70 percent 
of all antibiotics and related drugs used in this country go to healthy 
food animals, not people, according to the Union of Concerned 
Scientists.
  Our legislation would in no way infringe upon the use of these drugs 
to treat a sick animal. It simply bans the nontherapeutic use--the 
constant, daily use by farmers who mix the medicine they buy in 50-
pound bags to mix it in the food of the livestock in the hope that 
doing so will prevent the animals from getting sick.
  Think about that for a moment. If anyone suggested that you mixed 
antibiotics every day in your children's cereal, you would think that's 
crazy. Not only that, you would understand that it's very dangerous 
and, more importantly, likely only to lead to a new class of drug-
resistant ``super bugs'' that eventually stop feeling the effects of 
our best antibiotics.
  A Senator claimed on the floor this week that Denmark, which has 
instituted the same restriction that we call for in this bill on the 
overuse of antibiotics, the result was an increase in animal mortality.
  While criticizing a Time magazine article on this issue, he said, 
``We only have to turn to our neighbor across the Atlantic to see how a 
ban on antibiotics has played out. The European Union made a decision 
to phase out the use of antibiotics as growth promoters over 15 years 
ago and in 1998 Denmark instituted a full voluntary ban, which in 2000 
became mandatory. After the ban was implemented in 1999, pork producers 
saw an immediate increase in piglet mortality and post-weaning 
diarrhea.''

                              {time}  1130

  In fact, just the opposite is true. In a recent letter to Speaker 
Pelosi and to me, the National Food Institute of Denmark, concerned 
about the wrongful debate taking place in the United States, has 
written us that production has actually increased by 47 percent from 
1992 to 2008. He also said that mortality of livestock was largely 
``unaffected'' by the ban--but I will assume that they cleaned up, that 
they didn't stack up the animals who lived in their feces and rarely 
set foot outside the confined bin--but has improved again more 
recently. I would like to put a copy of that letter and report into the 
Record today.
  In fact, it is my guess that several of my colleagues would agree 
with me and disagree with our colleague in the Senate.
  Finally, I want to touch on one other issue relating to the 
legislation which we are speaking of, and it's the economy. This is a 
looming trade issue. Denmark and other European countries already are 
using strict food safety regulations against American products as we 
know. We all know exactly what has happened to our industries with each 
domestic food poisoning or health scare: Other countries respond by 
telling us they do not want to import our products, and the losers are 
our farmers and industries.
  As this trend continues, I see nothing but downside for American 
farmers who may soon be told by more and more countries that their pork 
or beef or poultry or other products are potentially hazardous and 
cannot be imported.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 2 additional minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Before I close, I want to speak a bit about an article 
that appeared on the front page of the New York Times this past Sunday. 
It told about a young woman named Stephanie Smith, 22 years old, who 
was paralyzed from eating hamburger, frozen hamburger bought at a 
market. And they traced the genesis of this hamburger, and let me tell 
you what they found:
  Meat companies and grocers have been barred from selling ground beef 
tainted by a virulent strain of E. coli after an outbreak at Jack in 
the Box left four children dead. Tens of thousands of people are 
sickened annually by this pathogen, and Federal health officials 
estimate that hamburger is the biggest culprit. This summer, 
contamination led to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 
States.
  Now we talk about the cuts of beef that are used in this hamburger. 
Most of them are trimmings that they get from God knows where. We found 
in the hamburger that paralyzed Ms. Smith that some of it came from 
Uruguay. They are low-grade ingredients cut from areas of the cow 
likely to have had contact with feces which carries E. coli.
  So the filthy cattle is brought in. And one of the most telling 
things is there are unwritten agreements between some companies 
standing in the way of ingredient testing. Many big slaughterhouses 
will only sell to grinders who agree not to test their shipments for E. 
coli according to officials at two large grinding companies. 
Slaughterhouses fear that one grinder's discovery of E. coli will set 
off a recall that they sold to others.
  Food scientists have expressed increasing concern about the virulence 
of this pathogen since only a few stray cells can make you sick and 
there are no safety issues that we require about washing up, scrubbing 
everything. None of them are at all sufficient against this bug which 
has become more virulent. And I avow that that is because they are fed 
the antibiotic to kill E. coli almost daily.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. On August 16, 2007, the day Ms. Smith's hamburger was 
made, the No. 3 grinder at the Cargill plant in Butler, Wisconsin, 
started up at 6:50 a.m. The largest ingredient was beef trimmings, 
which they call 50/50--half meat, half whatever--costing 60 cents a 
pound. Potential for this contamination is present every step of the 
way, according to both the workers and the Federal inspectors. The 
cattle arrive with smears of feces all over them. They are poorly kept. 
I would also like to put this article in the Record.
  I hope people will read this. I think that we are really heading for 
a trade disaster as well as, most importantly, not making 90,000 
Americans sick every year.

                                          National Food Institute,


                                  Danish Technical University,

                                   Copenhagen, September 19, 2009.
     Re meeting with a Congress delegation on the Danish 
         experience with stop for non-therapeutic use of 
         antimicrobials.

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, United States 
         of America.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi: We have just had the pleasure of 
     meeting with a delegation consisting of four members of the 
     House of Representatives, where we presented our data on the 
     effects of the stop for non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials 
     for food animals in Denmark.
       We know that various rumours and sometimes ``creative'' 
     interpretations of what has taken place in Denmark have been 
     circulated to members of the U.S. Congress, and we are 
     grateful for having been given this opportunity to correct 
     some of these stories.
       We are very pleased that you have approved the visit by 
     this delegation, and would hereby like to send you a 
     complimentary copy of the data we presented to the 
     delegation.
       If any further information is required, please do not 
     hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Frank M. Aarestrup,
     Professor.
                                  ____


Summary of Conclusions: Meeting With National Food Institute, Technical 
  University of Denmark on Danish Experience With the Stop for Use of 
                     Non-Therapeutic Antimicrobials


        Swine production, diseases and antimicrobial consumption

       The Danish swine production has increased from 18.4 
     millions in 1992 to 27.1 millions in 2008; a 47% increase.
       Productivity increased continuously before and after NTA 
     stop.

[[Page H10535]]

       Weaner mortality increased before and a few years after NTA 
     stop--the rate seemed unaffected, except the first year after 
     the ban. Mortality has improved considerably in recent years 
     (management).
       Weaner average daily gain decreased until and increased 
     after NTA stop (continuously during a decade).
       Finisher mortality increased before and after NTA stop, 
     similar rate. (mortality decreased first year).
       Finisher average daily gain increased before and after NTA 
     stop.
       Total antimicrobial consumption has fluctuated over time, 
     but has in summary decreased from 100.4 to 48.9 mg/Kg pork 
     produced; a 51% reduction.
       Major reductions in resistance among animal pathogens, 
     indicator bacteria and zoonotic bacteria.


                          Broiler productivity

       Kg broilers produced per square meter: not affected.
       The feed-conversion ratio: an increase of 0.9% (0.016 kg/
     kg) was observed after NTA withdrawal.
       Percent dead broilers in total (mortality): increased until 
     and decreased after NTA withdrawal. Positively affected.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Oct. 4, 2009]

              E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection

                           (By Michael Moss)

       Meat companies and grocers have been barred from selling 
     ground beef tainted by the virulent strain of E. coli known 
     as O157:H7 since 1994, after an outbreak at Jack in the Box 
     restaurants left four children dead. Yet tens of thousands of 
     people are still sickened annually by this pathogen, federal 
     health officials estimate, with hamburger being the biggest 
     culprit. Ground beef has been blamed for 16 outbreaks in the 
     last three years alone, including the one that left Ms. Smith 
     paralyzed from the waist down. This summer, contamination led 
     to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 states.
       Ms. Smith's reaction to the virulent strain of E. coli was 
     extreme, but tracing the story of her burger, through 
     interviews and government and corporate records obtained by 
     The New York Times, shows why eating ground beef is still a 
     gamble. Neither the system meant to make the meat safe, nor 
     the meat itself, is what consumers have been led to believe.
       Ground beef is usually not simply a chunk of meat run 
     through a grinder. Instead, records and interviews show, a 
     single portion of hamburger meat is often an amalgam of 
     various grades of meat from different parts of cows and even 
     from different slaughterhouses. These cuts of meat are 
     particularly vulnerable to E. coli contamination, food 
     experts and officials say. Despite this, there is no federal 
     requirement for grinders to test their ingredients for the 
     pathogen.
       The meat industry treats much of its practices and the 
     ingredient in ground beef as trade secrets. While the 
     Department of Agriculture has inspectors posted in plants and 
     has access to production records, it also guards those 
     secrets. Federal records released by the department through 
     the Freedom of Information Act blacked out details of 
     Cargill's grinding operation that could be learned only 
     through copies of the documents obtained from other sources. 
     Those documents illustrate the restrained approach to 
     enforcement by a department whose missions include ensuring 
     meat safety and promoting agriculture markets.
       Within weeks of the Cargill outbreak in 2007, U.S.D.A. 
     officials swept across the country, conducting spot checks at 
     224 meat plants to assess their efforts to combat E. coli. 
     Although inspectors had been monitoring these plants all 
     along, officials found serious problems at 55 that were 
     failing to follow their own safety plans.
       ``Every time we look, we find out that things are not what 
     we hoped they would be,'' said Loren D. Lange, an executive 
     associate in the Agriculture Department's food safety 
     division.
       In the weeks before Ms. Smith's patty was made, federal 
     inspectors had repeatedly found that Cargill was violating 
     its own safety procedures in handling ground beef, but they 
     imposed no fines or sanctions, records show. After the 
     outbreak, the department threatened to withhold the seal of 
     approval that declares ``U.S. Inspected and Passed by the 
     Department of Agriculture.''
       In the end, though, the agency accepted Cargill's proposal 
     to increase its scrutiny of suppliers. That agreement came 
     early last year after contentious negotiations, records show. 
     When Cargill defended its safety system and initially 
     resisted making some changes, an agency official wrote back: 
     ``How is food safety not the ultimate issue?''


                                the risk

       On Aug. 16, 2007, the day Ms. Smith's hamburger was made, 
     the No. 3 grinder at the Cargill plant in Butler, Wis., 
     started up at 6:50 a.m. The largest ingredient was beef 
     trimmings known as ``50/50''--half fat, half meat--that cost 
     about 60 cents a pound, making them the cheapest component.
       Cargill bought these trimmings--fatty edges sliced from 
     better cuts of meat--from Greater Omaha Packing, where some 
     2,600 cattle are slaughtered daily and processed in a plant 
     the size of four football fields.
       As with other slaughterhouses, the potential for 
     contamination is present every step of the way, according to 
     workers and federal inspectors. The cattle often arrive with 
     smears of feedlot feces that harbor the E. coli pathogen, and 
     the hide must be removed carefully to keep it off the meat. 
     This is especially critical for trimmings sliced from the 
     outer surface of the carcass.
       Federal inspectors based at the plant are supposed to 
     monitor the hide removal, but much can go wrong. Workers 
     slicing away the hide can inadvertently spread feces to the 
     meat, and large clamps that hold the hide during processing 
     sometimes slip and smear the meat with feces, the workers and 
     inspectors say.
       Greater Omaha vacuums and washes carcasses with hot water 
     and lactic acid before sending them to the cutting floor. But 
     these safeguards are not foolproof.
       ``As the trimmings are going down the processing line into 
     combos or boxes, no one is inspecting every single piece,'' 
     said one federal inspector who monitored Greater Omaha and 
     requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak 
     publicly.
       The E. coli risk is also present at the gutting station, 
     where intestines are removed, the inspector said.
       Every five seconds or so, half of a carcass moves into the 
     meat-cutting side of the slaughterhouse, where trimmers said 
     they could keep up with the flow unless they spot any 
     remaining feces.
       ``We would step in and stop the line, and do whatever you 
     do to take it off,'' said Esley Adams, a former supervisor 
     who said he was fired this summer after 16 years following a 
     dispute over sick leave. ``But that doesn't mean everything 
     was caught.''
       Two current employees said the flow of carcasses keeps up 
     its torrid pace even when trimmers get reassigned, which 
     increases pressure on workers. To protest one such episode, 
     the employees said, dozens of workers walked off the job for 
     a few hours earlier this year. Last year, workers sued 
     Greater Omaha, alleging that they were not paid for the time 
     they need to clean contaminants off their knives and other 
     gear before and after their shifts. The company is contesting 
     the lawsuit.
       Greater Omaha did not respond to repeated requests to 
     interview company officials. In a statement, a company 
     official said Greater Omaha had a ``reputation for embracing 
     new food safety technology and utilizing science to make the 
     safest product possible.''
       Ms. Smith's burger also contained trimmings from a 
     slaughterhouse in Uruguay, where government officials insist 
     that they have never found E. coli O157:H7 in meat. Yet 
     audits of Uruguay's meat operations conducted by the U.S.D.A. 
     have found sanitation problems, including improper testing 
     for the pathogen. Dr. Hector J. Lazaneo, a meat safety 
     official in Uruguay, said the problems were corrected 
     immediately. ``Everything is fine, finally,'' he said. ``That 
     is the reason we are exporting.''
       Cargill's final source was a supplier that turns fatty 
     trimmings into what it calls ``fine lean textured beef.'' The 
     company, Beef Products Inc., said it bought meat that 
     averages between 50 percent and 70 percent fat, including 
     ``any small pieces of fat derived from the normal breakdown 
     of the beef carcass.'' It warms the trimmings, removes the 
     fat in a centrifuge and treats the remaining product with 
     ammonia to kill e. coli.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to our colleague from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for the time.
  I have to rise today in strong opposition to this rule, and 
unfortunately and reluctantly in opposition to the conference report 
itself. The main reason, this rule is simply outrageous. We've had a 
long debate for years around here about air-dropping items in 
conference. What happens is that you have a bill that comes out of the 
House that does not have a provision in it, a bill that comes out of 
the Senate that does not have the provision in it, and then policies 
and new laws are dropped in in conference with no debate, no 
discussion, nothing passed off the floor of either body but just come 
from afar, air-dropped at conference time.
  In this bill, there are at least five new programs that were air-
dropped in conference costing $150 million. That's in this bill. And it 
certainly is way beyond the scope of the Rules Committee to approve 
this. Maybe there was some debate in the Rules Committee sometime that 
they agreed to it, but certainly there is no other Member that knows 
what these provisions are for.
  Again, to spend $150 million, five new mandatory programs in this 
bill that no one has debated in either body is simply outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker, I also today have to oppose the conference report 
reluctantly. There are things in this conference report that I support, 
such as the research for agriculture, child nutrition, aid to farmers, 
all of these things. However, this is not, in my opinion, a responsible 
bill.
  Today we are going to vote on an agriculture appropriations package 
that

[[Page H10536]]

exceeds $121 billion. It contains huge increases in spending over last 
year's levels. Mandatory appropriations in this bill total $97.8 
billion. That is $10 billion more than last year. And nearly two-thirds 
of this increase is for domestic nutrition programs. They may be very, 
very worthwhile and needed. That's a $6.2 billion increase, 9 percent 
over last year's level. However, neither the House nor the Senate 
Appropriations Committee ever held a hearing on these items, where 
you're spending an additional $6.2 billion, with the proper agency to 
actually discuss the need whether or not this spending is justified.
  Farm commodity programs receive a $2.8 billion increase. That's 25 
percent over last year. And again Congress, the committee had no 
hearings to justify that kind of kind of an increase.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentlelady.
  Federal crop insurance that I very much support receives about $900 
million more than last year. That's a 14 percent increase, and yet 
never a hearing, no one from the agency that oversees crop insurance 
came to justify that kind of an increase.
  Discretionary appropriations in the bill total $23.3 billion, that's 
$2.7 billion more than fiscal year 2009, a 13 percent increase. This is 
$325 million more than the President requested, and $404 million more 
than was passed in the House bill. The largest discretionary increases 
are for nutritional assistance, including a $421 million increase for 
that. That's 6 over percent over last year. But did Congress have a 
hearing on it? No.
  The agreement contains a $590 million increase for foreign food 
assistance. That is a 39 percent increase. Again, neither the House nor 
the Senate held any hearings to discuss such an enormous spending 
increase.
  This spending bill was written with virtually no congressional 
oversight. It also almost seems that the motto of the Appropriations 
Committee today should be ``Spending Your Tax Dollars With No Questions 
Asked.''
  The American taxpayers deserve a heck of a lot better than this. 
Accountability matters for both the administration and this Congress. 
And at the very least, the Congress should be asking the tough 
questions about these budget requests, these spending increases, and we 
deserve to get answers about how these huge government programs are 
administered. To date, we haven't had hearings.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because of the air-
dropped items and the spending increases and support accountability and 
responsibility in this Congress. Unfortunately, I ask them to vote 
against the conference report.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California, the Chair of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. 
Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this conference report and the rule that 
enables it to come to the floor. I want to thank the chairwoman of the 
committee for bringing this matter to the floor. I also want to thank 
Chairman Obey and Chairwoman DeLauro for their work on this conference 
report.
  This legislation makes some important changes in child nutrition. 
First, this extension recognizes that hunger does not take a vacation 
during the summer. This extension provides $85 million for pilot summer 
food service program demonstration projects that will help expand 
benefits for low-income children during the summer.
  Secondly, the extension provides support to States to help increase 
the number of children who are automatically enrolled in the free 
school meals and to help reduce administrative errors in that program.
  Third, we are responding to the calls of school food directors across 
the country by including funding for school food service equipment 
grants in order to improve the quality of school meals. The program was 
created in the Recovery Act and was immediately successful. The demand 
in fact outpaces resources 6-to-1.
  Fourth, we know that promoting nutrition in school is not enough. 
Today almost 12 million children under 5 regularly spend time in child 
care, and that is why this bill invests $8 million in competitive 
grants to improve the quality of meals and promote health in child care 
settings.
  And finally, this bill supports our ongoing commitment to promote 
breastfeeding among the WIC population with $5 million to incentivize 
States to achieve and sustain higher rates of breastfeeding.
  These programs are a sound investment in the nutritional health of 
our children and come at no expense to the taxpayers because of the 
savings made elsewhere in the bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this rule and this conference report are 
emblematic of the problems of this Democratically controlled Congress. 
I want to quote from a piece called ``A New Direction For America'' 
which was on the Web site of then-Minority Leader Pelosi. ``Our goal is 
to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of 
government. To do so we will create and enforce rules that demand the 
highest ethics from every public servant, sever unethical ties between 
lawmakers and lobbyists and establish clear standards that prevent the 
trading of official business for gifts.''
  Despite this well-known promise, however, Representative Charlie 
Rangel remains the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee even though 
he faces serious charges that are now the subject of an Ethics 
Committee investigation: failure to report $75,000 in rental income on 
Federal and State tax returns; agreed to preserve tax breaks that would 
benefit a supporter who on the same day pledged to give $1 million to 
Rangel's ``Monument to Me''; used official congressional letterhead to 
solicit support for his ``Monument to Me''; rented four rent-stabilized 
apartments; took at least two corporate-funded trips; and failed to 
disclose millions of dollars in income and assets.
  This promise has certainly not been adhered to. Neither have the 
promises that have been made on other issues such as allowing 72 hours 
for bills to be read before they are voted upon.
  We are facing a serious economic situation in this country right now. 
In September, according to the Heritage Foundation, every aspect of the 
labor market was negative. Labor force participation fell to 65 
percent. Job losses were widespread. The negative statistics just go on 
and on and on: 15 million people unemployed and looking for work; 
263,000 jobs eliminated in September; almost 2 million people laid off 
in September, the highest number in 1 month ever; and 3 million jobs 
lost since the Democrat stimulus was passed in February.

                              {time}  1145

  As I said, the numbers go on and on and on. The unemployment rate is 
at 25.9 percent among job seekers between the ages of 16 and 19, the 
highest level since the statistic was first measured in 1948.
  The people in charge of this Congress, the Democrats, have not lived 
up to their promises, have not lived up to the expectations of the 
American people. They talk about a moral obligation. Our moral 
obligation is that to us personally. We don't have an obligation for 
wealth redistribution in this country. It is not our job to take from 
some Americans and give to others. Our moral obligation, again, is on a 
personal level. We're challenged by Jesus to look after people as 
individuals, not as a government. So we are not doing what we should 
have been doing.
  As my other colleagues have said, we don't want to starve people. We 
don't want to starve children. We don't want to deny people the 
opportunity to succeed in this country.
  I heard my colleagues talk about food safety from overseas, and 
yesterday we heard that less than 1 percent of foods being imported 
from overseas are being tested for food safety. But what are our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle doing? Putting small farmers 
out of business just as fast as they possibly can, raising taxes by 
their cap-and-tax bill and by their proposed health care bill.
  A large number of small businesses who make over $250,000 a year file 
their taxes as individuals. There is this hatred, it appears, for 
success in this country by members of the opposite party. They don't 
make the connection that many of these small businesses file as 
individuals, and therefore, they

[[Page H10537]]

are going to be taxed, despite the promises that individuals aren't 
going to be taxed.
  They're out of touch. They don't understand rural America. They don't 
understand small businesses. They've never been there. They don't know 
what it's like to make a payroll, so they willy-nilly go ahead and 
raise taxes. They don't want to dole out money from the government to 
try to make people beholden to the government.
  If we would talk to our farmers out there, particularly our dairy 
farmers, we would find out that they don't want a handout from the 
government. They simply want rules and regulations lifted so that they 
can do the jobs that they want to do. They love farming. They want to 
stay in it, but they want the government to get out of their way and 
stop giving them a burden.
  So what we need to do is we need to take into account the need to 
establish priorities, fund those things that the Federal Government 
should be funding, get out of the way of our farmers and our small 
businesses and not tax them out of existence. That's what we need to be 
doing in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a statement that 
says what 9.8 percent unemployment means by the numbers, which has in 
it many more things than I was able to say on the floor today.

  What 9.8 Percent Unemployment Means by the Numbers, October 6, 2009

       ``I know that ultimately the measure of an economy is, is 
     it producing jobs that help people support families, send 
     their kids to college?''--President Barack Obama, September 
     20, 2009.
       Last week, the Department of Labor reported the highest 
     unemployment rate in 26 years--9.8 percent for the month of 
     September. Sadly, 9.8 percent only tells part of the story of 
     the struggles of average Americans. A deeper look at the 
     numbers reveals the true cost of the Democrats' economic 
     policies, especially for the nation's most vulnerable people.
       People unemployed and looking for work--the highest number 
     ever: 15,142,000.
       Jobs eliminated in September: 263,000.
       People laid off in September--the highest number in one 
     month ever: 1,916,000.
       Jobs lost since Democrats' ``stimulus'' was passed in 
     February: 2,884,000.
       People who are working only part-time because they cannot 
     find full time employment: 9,179,000.
       People who want work, but who are not currently looking 
     because of state of the economy: 2,219,000.
       People unemployed and searching for work for more than 27 
     weeks--the highest level ever: 5,438,000.
       Job seekers that are new entrants to the workforce and have 
     yet to find a job: 1,112,000.
       Average number weeks job seekers are unemployed after 
     losing their jobs--the highest number since the statistic was 
     first recorded in 1948: 26.2.
       Unemployment rate among job seekers between the ages of 16 
     and 19--the highest level since the statistic was first 
     measured in 1948: 25.9%.
       Unemployment rate among African Americans--the highest 
     level since 1985: 15.4%.
       Unemployment rate among Hispanics and Latinos: 12.7%.
       Rate of underemployment, accounting for the unemployed and 
     those who are unable to find adequate work: 17%.
       Unemployment rate among job seekers without a high school 
     degree: 15%.
       Rate of the U.S. population in the workforce--the lowest 
     level since 1986: 65.2%.
       Rate of the U.S. population who currently have a job--the 
     lowest level since 1985: 58.8%.

  I want to urge my colleagues today to defeat the previous question so 
an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule would 
provide for separate consideration of H. Res. 544, a resolution to 
require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the 
Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House. It does not 
affect the bill made in order by the rule. My colleagues have spoken 
very eloquently about this.
  The amendment to the rule provides that the House will debate the 
issue of reading the bill within 3 legislative days. It does not 
disrupt the schedule. The discharge petition has 182 names, including 5 
Democrats. This bill has gained the support of an overwhelming majority 
of Americans and is widely respected by government watchdogs.
  I want to urge the citizens of this country to pay attention to the 
process, as was discussed earlier, because process is important. 
Whether people sign the discharge petition is really the measure of 
whether they support it. This is not a partisan measure, Mr. Speaker. 
As Members of Congress, we ought to agree that regardless of the 
legislation brought before us, we should always have the opportunity to 
read and understand the legislation before we vote. We need to have 
this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an 
article from the Star-News entitled, ``Hungry Eyes--More N.C. children 
go without food.''

          [From the Wilmington (NC) Star News, Aug. 15, 2009]

            Hungry Eyes--More N.C. Children Go Without Food

                           (By Amanda Greene)

       The three children hadn't eaten a full meal in two days.
       In desperation, their grandparents knocked on the door of a 
     downtown Wilmington church.
       The children waited in the car as their grandparents asked 
     the minister at the door for help.
       He gave them a box of pop-top cans of Vienna sausages and 
     pork and beans.
       ``They got the food, drove out of the parking lot and 
     stopped beside the road to feed the kids right away,'' said 
     Jennifer Caslin, development manager at the Wilmington branch 
     of the Food Bank of Central and Eastern North Carolina.
       Such scenes are increasingly common here and throughout the 
     state as joblessness and the weak economy put ever greater 
     strains on an already thin safety net. You don't have to look 
     hard to see hungry children in North Carolina. Whether it's 
     families skipping breakfast so the food will stretch through 
     dinner, or eating packaged foods, because fruits and 
     vegetables are too expensive, many of the state's children 
     aren't eating balanced, nutritious meals.
       In May, Feeding America, the largest food bank network in 
     the country, released the results of its first analysis of 
     food insecurity in early childhood, ``Child Food Insecurity 
     in the United States: 2005-2007.'' North Carolina ranked 
     second worst in the nation with 24.1 percent of its children 
     under 5 judged to be food insecure and lacking regular access 
     to nutritional food. The state was 10th worst in the same 
     Feeding America study of food insecurity in children 0-18 
     years old, using figures from the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture. Nationally, the food insecurity average is 17 
     percent for children under 5.
       Demand for food at the nation's food banks has increased 30 
     percent in the past year, said Ross Fraser, media relations 
     manager for Feeding America. ``So many people have been 
     plunged into poverty,'' he said, ``and it's terrible for 
     children because it stunts their growth in all ways.''
       Indicators of food insecurity in North Carolina include 
     high child poverty rates, the 11 percent unemployment rate, 
     broken families, the high price of fresh food and a 21 
     percent increase in households with food stamps since 2007, 
     said Alexandra Sirota, director of policy and research, 
     Action for Children North Carolina in Raleigh.
       North Carolina ranked 37th in child well-being in the 
     recently released 2009 Kids Count Data Book from the Annie E. 
     Casey Foundation using factors such as the percent of low-
     birth-weight babies, infant mortality rate, child death rate, 
     teen death rate, teen birth rate, percent of teenaged high 
     school dropouts, percent of teens not attending school and 
     not working, percent of children in families without a parent 
     with full-time and year-round employment, percent of children 
     in poverty and percent of children in single-parent families. 
     The state did improve one level from its 38th ranking in 
     2008.
       Often the youngest children fall through the cracks, 
     subject to their parents' ability--or inability-- to provide 
     nutritious foods.
       ``There are a lot of programs that are available once 
     (kids) get into the school system, but those aren't always 
     available for young children until school age,'' Sirota 
     added. ``The fact that families are both losing their jobs 
     and earning such low wages that they're living in extreme 
     poverty is an indicator of that added stress when you're 
     trying to feed the family.''


                            bridging the gap

       When parents can't feed their children regularly, often the 
     schools, local social service networks and churches try to 
     fill the need.
       And in the summers, when school's out, the need for meals 
     for children increases. The New Hanover County school 
     district hosts a federally-funded Summer Food Service for 
     Children Program at 15 schools and community centers in the 
     county for any child, 18 years old or younger, to eat a 
     lunch-time meal. For six weeks this summer, the program 
     served about 700 kids each day. That number is slightly lower 
     than previous years because funding for the program came in 
     after the end of school this year and didn't get advertised, 
     said Anne Ohlson, schools child nutrition supervisor.
       ``We do see a lot of hungry children who are waiting for us 
     when we show up with the

[[Page H10538]]

     food,'' said Imer Smith, director of Child Nutrition for New 
     Hanover County Schools. Historically, most of those children 
     would show up at inner-city sites, but the number of children 
     coming to the program's sites outside the city is increasing.
       An 8-year-old girl and her 4-year-old brother were among a 
     crowd of about 10 children who were waiting for the Food 
     Service lunch to start at the doors of the Jervay Communities 
     meeting center one day a few weeks ago. The girl and her 
     brother walked from their Jervay home across the square to 
     the center each day that week for lunch. Lunch was a turkey 
     and cheese sandwich, cucumber slices with ranch dressing, 
     a peach cup and skim chocolate milk.
       ``I love ranch on my sandwich,'' the little boy said, 
     smiling and slathering his bun.
       During the school year, Caroline Hines is seeing more and 
     more parents who can't pay their child's food accounts as 
     food service director at Rachel Freeman Elementary School. 
     Parents who don't qualify for free or reduced meals have sent 
     her notes asking her not to allow their children to eat if 
     they don't bring money with them because the parents can't 
     afford the charge: $1.25 for breakfast or $2 for lunch. 
     Defaulted lunch accounts at all New Hanover schools have 
     risen from $18,223 in 2008 to $29,203 at the end of last 
     school year. New Hanover County Schools saw an increase in 
     children in free and reduced lunch programs from 9,792 in 
     2007-08 to 10,375 in 2008-09.
       ``I had a child who came in at breakfast and waited until 
     the end to get the leftover food that no one had opened,'' 
     Hines said, adding that teachers and school social workers 
     sometimes buy students meals. Some parents won't fill out the 
     free lunch forms because ``they think people will know their 
     child needed it.''


                            FEEDING THE POOR

       What she sees during the school year frustrates Hines. The 
     state ``feeds prisoners,'' she added, ``but our school 
     children that have done nothing wrong are going hungry.''
       But just feeding children during the week often isn't 
     enough. The local Food Bank's Backpack Program helped 75 
     children each week during school last year take meals home to 
     help their family over the weekend. The children bring the 
     backpacks back to school each week to be refilled at the Food 
     Bank. One of the parents of the children who participated in 
     the Backpack Program wrote: ``I thank you for the program 
     because so many kids might be in the same place as my girls 
     were. They didn't have food before they went to bed at 
     night.''
       In the tri-county area, many times churches are the main 
     sources of food pantry help for the poor.
       The South Brunswick Interchurch Council Food Pantry in 
     Shallotte has seen a 33 percent increase in children ages 0-
     17 served there since August last year, said Mary Pritchard, 
     a council member.
       This spring, Life Community Church in Wilmington was 
     distributing about 800 food boxes a month through the 
     national Angel Food Ministries. Most of their box recipients 
     were families. The church hopes its new location in 
     Independence Mall will help people in need find Angel Food 
     easier.
       ``We've had people make comments that if it wasn't for this 
     program, we wouldn't be eating,'' said Mindy McAdams, church 
     director of Angel Food Ministries.
       One inner city pastor who works regularly with hungry 
     families in his church blamed the child hunger he's seeing on 
     the lack of family structure.
       ``I've seen latch-key situations where the parents aren't 
     home and they tell the kids, there's something in the fridge 
     for you to eat,'' he said, ``But you're talking to an 8-year-
     old child or younger who doesn't know how to cook.''

  May I ask how much time I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear to my colleagues, the bill 
before us was filed over a week ago, so this debate we're having is not 
about process. This really is about substance. And I am sad that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a problem with child 
nutrition programs. They have no problem when it comes to corporate tax 
breaks. They have no problems when it comes to immunity for big drug 
companies. But here they are on the floor today, they have a problem 
with child nutrition programs.
  I should say to my colleague from North Carolina, poor kids don't 
want a handout. They don't want the government to provide them with a 
free meal. They wish that they weren't in that position. Unfortunately, 
the tough times that they find themselves in require us to help out. I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 799 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. __. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the [Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

[[Page H10539]]



                          ____________________