>> clerk will preserve the paper for recycling. >> 923 communities in america will not be eligible for funding under rural development programs by october 1st of this year. you must revise the definition of rural. the grandfather clause will expire. this clause allowed any community that was rural in 1990 to continue to be eligible for the funding as long as it had a population blow 25,000. as a result of the new definition, 923 communities currently eligible will be cut off from their only source of federal housing funding. after october 1st, 2012, they must fall within the new strict

definition. i proposed the act that will preserve the definition of rural under current law until the 2020 census data is available. this could be the difference between economic struggle or a stronger recover in communities. this bill, in a similar amendment was included in the sanity passed version of the farm bill. unfortunately due to jurisdictional issues on this side of the body, i understand the amendment will not be allowed in our bill today. so, i intend to withdraw it. so you have unanimous consent to withdraw, but i say it all so we are appropriately educated, and as we move forward we can find another creative fix here. >> the member has effectively served notice and withdraws the amendment, see no objection and

the gentleman yields back? >> i yield back. >> are there additional amendments to title 5? additional amendments? additional amendments? seeing no additional amendments to title 5, title 5 is now closed. we will proceed to title 6 rural development. if there's no objection by unanimous consent, i say we dispense with the reading of title 6 and move to amendments. seeing no objection, we now proceed. title 6 is open for amendment. >> have an amendment, mr. chairman. >> we will start with the gentleman from north carolina. >> i have an amendment, mcintyre amendment number 15. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 15 and the gentleman may proceed with t

the -- water and wastewater needs in rural america are critically important and i know this committee recognizes this need, in the last farm bill, we provided $120 million in mandatory funding for rural water, and wastewater infrastructure, we know that water is the key and coming crisis that will keep rural america lagging behind if we do not have adequate funding and right now, there's a terrific backlog of funding, we need to make sure we provide to rural america. most of the backlog funding we have here today will go out at loans, that are repaid to the treasury. we know with the current backlog in $3.2 billion, the communities economic growth is pa paralyzed. the limited tax and customer

base, small and rural communities have a difficult time providing safe and affordable water which means home building, businesses and institutions cannot expand without adequate water and sewer service. it's the most basic of government services that communities need. so mr. chairman, what i'm asking today is that when we talk about jobs, the number one issue facing our country in the need, we can make an investment today to make sure that we are reaching out to rural america and not leaving it behind. my amendment would direct $50 million in mandatory spending to address the water and wastewater backlog in is usda, this mirrors the approach that was taken by our counter parts in the senate. i have long called for fiscal responsibility and supported a balanced budget amendment. we have done our part and clearly have done it to reduce the deficit, by continuing to come to terms on a farm bill

that will save $35 billion. i ask that we not place the entire burden on the backs of rural communities that are already lagging behind and have a terrible backlog for rural products. i offer you this amendment to address this dire need for water and wastewater projects in america. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any members seeking request? chairman is recognized for five minutes after striking the last word. >> i think we have done mandatory money in the farm bill to catch up on the backlog and wastewater and water systems and so forth. but, where given the budget constraints we are in, and all the cuts we have made, i don't

know how we can do that at this point. and the other thing that people need to remember. i think i'm right about this, there was considerable of the back lock that was cut up on the sim lus money on two now and nine. you know, so we did catch up a lot of the backlog on the that point, i'm not sure what the backlog is now, it's not as much as it was some other time. so, you know, i support the intent of the amendment, but we are making huge cuts in other areas. and i just captain vote to increase funding in the area, in light of all the cuts we have made. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment? anyone else? the chair strikes -- >> this is new money on top of, this is an increase in spending?

>> it's mandatory money. >> so it's new. new money. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think that pretty well sums it up, the gentleman yields back. seeing any additional requests for time? acknowledgment, seeing none, seeing none, will not proceed to vote on number 15, all those in favor of amendment number 15, will say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. >> no. >> the nos appear to visit. the nos appear to have it, and the nos indeed have it. are there additional amendments to title 6? gentleman from illinois seeks recognition. >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment 61. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 61 and the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment when he is ready. >> this is this is nature of i'm not the manager, this should be

relatively noncontroversial, this comes from the rural development sub committee, we had had a hearing in which the colleagues attended. this amendment clarifies the text of the build by connecting business to broadband network. we feel it's important to achieving the rural broadband program. the intention of the provision is to allow for a environment for economic development. it's for unserved areas with no providers. to my knowledge, there's no objection, but i know the ranking member has been helpful to us in the project, and defer

to you. >> i yield such time as you need. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. both chairmans. i have had the privilege to work with the chairman of the sub committee and this was a hearing that we held in spring last year and i think the amendment reflects the work product of that hearing. i fully support it and the good work that the chairman has done. and a member who is retiring out to get some sort of gift, so i think we should adopt it unanimously. >> i should ask for more than this. >> i yield the balance of my time. >> i yield back. >> appreciate it. >> any further requests for recognition? not seeing any, we will proceed to vote on amendment number 61. all those in favor of amendment number 61 will say so by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed will signify by saying no.

>> the ayes appear to have it and the ayes do indeed have it. and it's adopted. are there additional amendments to title 6. let's go to the gentlelady to alabama, for what reason do you seek recognition? >> i have amendment at the desk, amendment number 29. >> clerk will distribute number 29, and the lady is recognized when she is ready. >> this amendment would allow usda rural development to give priority to applications that are otherwise eligible and support community and economic development plans on a multi-jurisdictional bases the lack of significant of infrastructure and capitol are critical to small towns in rural america. usda's broad range of programs

can be effective by focusing grants and loan resources on local priorities that demonstrates a broad support with multiple stakeholders. rural people and businesses and communities are operating in dynamic regional economies. and the usda rural development programs must be reshaped to more locally driven and strategic regional approaches. current funding decisions are being made based on what federal officials seem to deem as the best grant writing because the agency is not authorized to priorityize local strategic projects. this offers a unique opportunity to authorize usda to do more innovative and ensure that federal dollars get stretched further and that local rural communities and regions not washington will drive rural development funding decisions.

i am confident that the stakeholders are united in support of this policy change. in fact, this change was included in the senate farm bill, with bipartisan support by both the chair and ranking member. the campaign for renewed rural development is 38 national orga with a strong interest in the future of small town america. the cam main made the policy request and the policy change as one of the six key priorities. no organization, to my knowledge, is on record as opposing the amendment, as it would benefit all sizes and types of rural communities, demonstrated by the united support of the major national association representing rural township cities and communities. as well as all of the counties. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and allow them to continue the effort in maximizing their input and impact on rural communities

across the country. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentle lady yields back the balance of my time. >> gentleman is recognized. >> unfortunately, i must oppose this amendment, as does the ranking member. many are the least able to partner in submitting applications for programs. given our limited resources in the title, i cannot support an amendment to channel more resources to communities already better off. i would oppose because i feel we need the highest priority for the rural and remote communities. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. i have many of the same concerns. i must oppose the amendment for many of the same reasons and encourage my colleagues not to support it. gentleman from north carolina seeks recognition. >> very briefly, mr. chairman.

>> last word recognize for five minutes. >> i speak briefly to say i support the amendment the lack of sfrukt development and capital are the obstacles to competitiveness if we want america to keep up and not be left behind. there are strategic strategies that can yield great benefits for the regions they serve and give the usda greater flexibility to serve our tax paying citizens and rural americans who are tax paying citizens as much as those in rural and urban americans. and for that reason, i would hope we would be able to give them the opportunities that they need and make sure that the federal dollar gets stretched further and goes to better work for our citizens in rural areas. for that i thank you and ask for your support. >> i have a question. >> gentleman yields back. gentle lady from ohio. >> i have a question on this.

currently they can apply multijurisdictionally. this would give them priority. >> the gentle lady is correct. this would put such projects ahead of all other projects. >> but they can apply multijurisdictionally. >> that is my understanding. >> can i urge my colleagues to vote no. >> the gentle lady yields back the balance of the time. >> i move to strike the last word. i would like to associate myself with the gentle lady's point on this. i think the points brought up are right. the issues we have in the rural communities are what the pennsylvania said. we don't have the capacity to be the best grant writers. smaller communities are left out if they're not partners in a

bigger region nine, then they have the grant writing ability and they can apply. what they do is look at the grant writing because they are not authorized to prioritize strategically. they're not authorized for this part. so these people are left out of the decision making. so i would urge spoth of this and yield back my time. mr. chairman -- >> strike the last word. and i'm going to ask the question and turn it over to the author of the amendment. but in the first paragraph it says the secretary may give priority to applications. i was just looking for further explanation. >> that was provided by the chairman. you can consider multijurisdictionals now. it's not encouraged. in fact, as my colleague from

minnesota said, so often, they don't have the best grant writers. tl no way to get these grant opportunities in front of them without having some sort of regional support. it allows them to be competitive. >> i represent many of the same communities. my only concern is the word shall in the second paragraph. and that's what i was looking for a further explanation. i yield back my time. >> i believe the gentleman from new york seeks to strike the last word. just briefly, coming from a very rural community i can tell you that any advantage we can achieve is extremely important because we're frequently shut out by the larger area, urban

and suburban. and having been involved in economic development in my community, this seems reasonable and appropriate. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. chairman, you know, i'm not sure what would come out of this. i'm opposed to this. but in the last bill there was an attempt to do something like this. and they were all set up a huge bureaucracy, a whole new regional thing all over the country so they could do this kind of stuff. and i don't know if this is what would happen out of this. but i wouldn't be in favor of that. we have enough folks doing stuff the way it is. there were people all set up to be in charge of it and set up all over the country and so forth. and for whatever it's worth i've

been in congress 22 years. i've had somebody on my staff full time since i've been here that does this for the small communities. she puts on 100,000 miles a year. and it works. so there's other ways to do this. and this is not a bad idea done correctly. but the money situation, i don't think it's the right time to do this. >> no other request for recognition. seeing no other request for recognition, we can vote on amendment number 29. all those in favor of amendment 29 will signify by saying aye. all those oppose signify by saying no. the noes appear to have it. in nos do indeed have it. oh -- gentle lady asks for a recorded vote. the clerk will call the role.

>> mr. johnson? mr. king? mr. nogaboyer. mr. conway. mr. conway, no. mr. thompson? >> no. >> mr. thompson, no. mr. rooney? >> no. >> mr. guzman, no. >> mr. gibbs. >> no. >> mr. gibbs, no. mr. sutherland. >> no. >> mr. sutherland, no. mr. crawford. >> no. >> mr. crawford, no. >> no.

>> mr. gibson? >> yes. >> mr. gibson, yes. no. no. >> mr. schilling? >> yes. >> mr. schilling, yes. >> mr. ribble? >> no. >> mr. peterson? >> no. >> mr. peterson, no. mr. holden, no. >> mr. mcintire, yes. >> yes. yes.

mr. clayton? >> no. >> mr. costa? >> yes. >> mr. walls? >> yes. >> mr. straiter? >> yes. >> mr. kissle? >> yes. >> mr. owings? >> yes. >> mr. kingery, yes. yes. yes. yes. mr. johnson, no.

mr. king? >> no. >> mr. king, no. mr. kardosa? mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. the vote is 18 ayes, 26 nays. >> amendment number 29 is not accepted. >> i have an amendment. >> what is the number? >> it's number 12 on broad band.

>> the clerk will distribute amendment number 12. the gentleman may begin his explanation when he's prepared. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the bipartisan leadership that's been brought to this bill here today. you know, the need is critically important to my area and upstate new york. i think we share that really across this committee. you look at the data. there are 55 congressional districts that have 10% or more where constituents don't have access to high speed broadband. this is vitally important to the farmers. it's certainly important to the rural areas. i think it's also important to health care delivery, with clinics needing access to feedback from hospitals and more built up areas. when the kids go home, they don't have access to do the

homework. well, this committee started a program in 2002, the rus broadband program. now last year we brought an amendment to the floor. we saved the program. i think there was some misinformation about the program. the report was brought up a number of times. this is a report from 2009 that had some lit call points about the rus program. i want to say a couple things. first of all, i think the administration has done a good job of addressing the points in the i.p. report to improve the program. the second is i think there was a misconception in relation to the stimulus program, which was being executed from 2008 to 2011. a good number of changes were made, such that in 2012 we ended

the stimulus program and are back on the rus program. unfortunately, it was not taken advantage of. even though we appropriate rated money for the loan program, it was not executed. we need to alter the program slightly. so that we not only have the possibility of a low interest loan, but we allow for a grant program, a 10% project cost grant program that would have to be matched by the individual or by the entity taking out the loan. so this is a change. this amendment alters. it amends the rus program and authorizes the grant program with it. so this is a change from 25 million to 35 million. it would make not 20 million available for loan and not more

than 10 million available for grants. grants would then be made in combination with the loan. but the grants must be made in combination with the loan. and the grants cannot be 10% of the cost of the project. they must provide nonfederal funds to match the grant. the feedback i have from my municipalities and companies that are interested in this is that they looked at the program very carefully and came close to moving forward, but ultimately decided not to do that, and i think by tweaking this program, we'll actually use the program and we'll proliferate broadband and be able to get the positive benefit that i mentioned at the outset of my remarks. i hope you'll support this. i stand ready for questions or comments. i'll yield back, mr. chairman.

does anyone seek recognition? the gentleman from texas. mr. conway. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. i would oppose this. adding new complications to a program with limited funds, in my view, is not the right way to go at the time. i also heard my colleague say he wants to increase the program to $35 million. i'm not sheer he said where bewould get the other $10 million in the program. i would ask my colleagues not to support the program. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the other gentleman from texas. >> well, i appreciate -- >> move to strike the last word. >> strike the lard word. thank you. i appreciate the gentleman from new york's interest in broad band.

i think it is important to have equal opportunity all over the country to make sure the whole country. i would love to work with you in the future on this issue. this ichb creases the authorization. the i.g. did update that report on february of 2011. it said three things. second point is funding competitive services rather than expanding to services to community without existing access. and the third part was the decision to have providers in rural communities, but not others. this basically has the government picking winners or losers.