student loans to the lowest rates that are currently available to new borrowers. to discuss this proposal, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman, my friend and colleague from massachusetts, mr. tierney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding the time. mr. speaker, i rise to urge the house to act on responsible legislation that i've introduced that would help tens of millions of college students and graduates and parents, middle class families across the country to be able to refinance their existing loans to the same low rate offered to new borrowers in the student loan program. . as the president said earlier, this should be a no-brainer. small businesses are so often able to refine their debt, there's no reason parents can't do the same. refinancing would be a significant financial help to those of students and parents.

a recent analysis showed that middle class undergraduate student with an average loan debt would save more than $4,000 over the life of that loan. a typical graduate student would save more than $2,500, and a it upical parent would save $3,500 or more. my colleagues know these savings would be invested right back into the economy. last year the center for american progress estimate tad refinancing just some of these $21 l loans would pump million into the economy. that's because these people are $100 -- $40e $ 0 to to $100 a month. our bill is a good deal to taxpayers. just last week the congressional budget office scored our bill as generating $72.5 billion in savings over 10 years. mr. speaker, more and more constituents are writing my office, emailing, facebooking, stopping me in the street to talk about stories about how they and their children are

buried in student debt. two years ago i received an email tshtsh two days ago i received an email from a concerned mother in my district and this is what she had to say. that she and her husband followed the rules and been able to own their own home, support two children to adulthood. she feels her daughter will not be able to do the same as she currently owes $60,000 in college loans. her interest rates vary from 6 1/2% to 8 1/2%. she's drowning in her own debt and she's only 24. mr. speaker, this bush administration deserves support -- mr. hastings: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. tierney: i appreciate that. the reason this mother supports the bill because she knows it will help her daughter pay loans. this is really, mr. speaker, about whose side are you on? on the side of special interest and allowing them to continue tax favors while middle class americans end up lugging around this heavy burden of debt? i'm on the side of that concerned mother an her daughter

and others in this country who are concerned about their children's future. let's bring this bill to the floor for a vote. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i would at this time indicate to my friend from texas that i'm prepared to close. i have no further speakers at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, it's not all doom and gloom over here. there are provisions in the agriculture appropriation measure that i support. i appreciate the report language in support of the united states department of agriculture's pollenator programs. i along with others have been leaders in bringing the subject to the attention of congress,

something of vital interest to all of this nation, and i have been teased an awful lot about being the bee man because i bring up the pollenator issue all the time, but the fact of the matter is if we don't have bee, we are not going to have food. i also appreciate the provisions related to citrus greening which will be devastating to florida's citrus growers as well as those provisions in this measure that address rural housing. i represent belle glade florida and kanell point and places where rural housing is really important. but i along with all of my colleagues, particularly joe garcia, debbie wasserman schultz, and mario diaz-balart, all of us have raised the issues

with reference to citrus greening. the whole south florida delegation has been involved in that particular area. i grew up in the citrus area. i saw the early on stages of greening. if we don't do something about this particular problem, and this farm bill does -- appropriations does deal with some of it, then we may have no citrus coming from the state of florida. but there are a limited number of days left on our legislative calendar, and we have many miles to go before we as a congress have delivered on our obligation to help all americans. an obligation to businesspeople, absolutely. but also an obligation to help veterans get work. an obligation to ease the burden on teachers who use their own money to support their students. our students. an obligation to address forthrightly the important issues, including immigration

reform and raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment insurance and stop standing around here and thinking that we are doing something when we offer a moment of silence which is right for victims who have died of gun violence and the grief that is coming through all of those families. and you hear them begging for us to do something. we know that we can't solve all of those problems, but at least we could give them some assurance that we are trying to have universal background checks and that we are willing to ban assault weapons. why would anybody want an assault weapon other than a police officer or midtary person? and why should we permit them to be in their hands? we ought to bring those measures down here to the floor, and we do so at our peril. mr. speaker, at this time i ask unanimous consent to insert in the text my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. vote no on the underlying bills and certainly vote no on this record-setting rule for closed rules. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: first off i want to reference on the speaker's website, the website of john boehner, he references that when he took the speaker's gavel in january of 2011 promising to run a more open u.s. house of representatives than his predecessor, in the 3 1/2 years since then, speaker boehner has made good on that pledge by allowing more amendments and a steady stream of open rules while the democratic-controlled united states senate under majority leader harry reid has gone in the opposite direction.

one congressional expert calls open rules which allows members to freely offer amendments on esentencely nature during the consideration of a given bill, essential for fair consideration of legislation on the house floor, closed quote. under speaker boehner's leadership, members on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the aisle have been allowed to offer significantly more amendments and the house has operated under far more open rules than were allowed under the previous democratic-controlled house. the final year of the pelosi run house were a tour de force in closed government. during the final two years of representative pelosi's time as speaker, the house never considered a single bill under an open rule. some members of congress served their entire house careers under speaker pelosi without ever operating under an open rule. mr. speaker, let me just say on

the issue of so-called immigration reform. the administration has done more to distance and set back any policy in that direction. why do i say that? the reason is the unintended effects of their policies to send a message worldwide to come and by any method possible will not prosecute, we'll not send you back. as a conference we got an issue on the border of our state in texas that is at the same time both heartbreaking and frightening with underaged children literally being shoved across the border. mr. speaker, what does it say when an 8-year-old child can cross our border illegally, who else is getting in? f 8-year-olds are able to come across this porous border. mr. hastings: would my colleague

yield for a moment? mr. burgess: i yield to the gentleman. mr. hastings: i share your concerns as you express them with reference to the persons that are young people, unaccompanied coming to our country. i don't make any karl with you, but i would highlight the fact -- any karl with you, but i would -- quarle with you, but i would highlight the fact that many of the places they are coming from, el salvador, guatemala, and central america, the kids are running because of fright. and el salvador -- i remind you that they already have t.s.p., and we did that quite some time ago for those central american countries. we did it rightly then. i just offer that for information. i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. burgess: i would just point out that those conditions that the gentleman referenced, the conditions that might cause a child to be frightened existed

four years ago, existed three years ago, but there has been a dramatic change in the past two years and i believe that change is directly attributable to the policies of the administration when they went around the united states congress to unilaterally alter the united states immigration laws, which specifically in the constitution is a legislative branch requirement. mr. speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of three important bills. h.r. 4800, the agricultural appropriations act for fiscal year 2015. h.r. 4457, america's small business tax relief act of 201. and h.r. 4453, the permanent built in games recognition period for 2014. the rule is fair. the rule is important. it's important for us to move forward through the debate on these pieces of legislation. for that reason i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question on the resolution. 10 --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time of the the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote on the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9, rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 194. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 227, the nays are 189. the resolution is departmented. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the house will come to order. he house will come to order. the house will come to order. plebs take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to eth

rhett re-their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama will adjust the microphone. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4800 and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 616 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4800. the chair appoints the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, provide -- preside over the ommittee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 4800 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for agriculture, rural development and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time of the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt and the gentleman from alabama, mr. farr -- from california, mr. farr, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to begin consideration of h. reform 4800, making appropriations for f.y. 2015, agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration related agencies. the bill before us is unique and the program support in this bill will virtually impact every american, every day of the year. we support american farmers and

ranchers. who are very vital to our nation's economy and our health and well being. in needrt those at home with food and housing and we provide businesses with low income grants to help sustain economies. we help others around the world that face starvation and malnutrition. we support research and development to promote productivity and stability. we support the oversight of commodities markets. we support a safe food supply and effective drug devices. we're fortunate this nation can and does support these vital programs. the bill before us this afternoon reflects a delicate balance of needs and requirements. we have drafted what i consider a responsible bill for f.y. -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee will come to order. i ask members to take their

conversations off the floor. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: the bill before us today reflects a dell cant balance of needs and requirements. we have drafted what i consider a responsible bill for 2015. the spending levels for the departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. we have had to carefully make a priority for the funding and -- in this bill. we've had to make some hard choices in how to limit spending. i want to thank chairman rogers from kentucky for supporting us with a very fair allocation for this bill and for helping us move this bill forward. i also want to thank the subcommittee ranking member, mr.

farr from california, he has been a valuable partner and a colleague as we have moved forward in this legislation. i appreciate his commitment, i appreciate his understanding, as we have moved forward on a wide variety of programs in this bill. i sincerely thank him for his help. while i and the other subcommittee members have a wide array of agriculture in our districts, mr. farr represents an area sometimes referred to as the salad bowl of the world. i want to thank all the members of the subcommittee for their help and also ms.low wie, the ranking member for the full committee. i also thank the majority staff for their hard work. miller, en, betsy, pam andrew cooper and karen rudsall. i also appreciate the professionalism and cooperation of the minority staff in particular. i want to thank martha foaly and hogan medlin for their help in the long hours spent putting together this delicate report in this bill as well as rochelle,

katie and all of mr. farr's staff. when the subcommittee began the f.y. 2015 appropriations process, i asked my colleagues to keep in mind three guiding principles. the first was to ensure the proper use of funds for robust oversight, ensuring the appropriate level of regulation to protect producers and the public, and to assure funding is targeted to vital programs. these three principles guided us from the very first when our president's budget was submitted to the subcommittee and put before - and is put put the house today. these helped us set priorities in the 10 budget hearings we had throughout the spring that covered all of usda's mission areas, the u.s. food and drug administration and included the commodities future trading commission. they also, regarding the frameworks, regarded a principles to consider as we move forward with our colleagues on this bill.

in particular, we received more than 3,900 requests from 326 members to support, to reduce, or amend funding levels in their numerous accounts of this bill. of course, we could not meet every request but we tried to address the requests in a bipartisan manner and a way that was under the house rules. and of course there's no earmarks included in this bill. the total funding for this bill is $142.5 billion. this is $1.5 billion below the president's request and $3 billion below the f.y. 2014 enacted level. the bill includes $20.8 billion in discretionary budget authority, the same as the f.y. 2014 enacted level. mandatory spending totals $122 billion, $3 billion below the f.y. 2014 level. these mandatory funds support usda's farm, conservation, crop

insurance an nutrition programs. i'd like to briefly mention a few highlights in this bill. we provide $2.8 billion for agricultural research, we received many, many letters requesting support for the land grant colleges and universities. we were able to provide level funding for them. we also provided $325 million for the agriculture and food research initiative, which is usda's premier competitive research grant program. we provided $870 million for the animal and plant health inspection service. this agency works to eradicate plant and animal disease and keep the bad bugs out of the country. i'm pleased to say that we're able to increase funding to combat citrus greening disease and the viral epidemic affecting hog producers. this funding will supplement the emergency funding the administration announced last week for research and

surveillance purposes. the bill also includes more than $1 billion for the food and safety inspection service, prakly the same as the f.y. 2014 level. but $3.8 million above the request. it will maintain more than 8,000 inspectors at more than 6,400 meat, poultry and egg product facilities across the nation. the bill provides $1.5 billion for the farm service agency and does not include closure of any county offices. this proposal made no sense in the 2014 farm bill and it is still being implemented in the county offices across the nation. but we did fully fund the various farm loan programs in this bill. for the natural resource conservation service, we provide $869 million to help farmers, ranchers and private forestland owners to conserve and protect their land and increase funding to help rehabilitate small downs. this bill is one of only 12

appropriation -- is the only one of the 12 appropriation bills that focuses on rural america. it provides $2.6 billion for rural development programs, including funding to support $881 billion in industry loans, $1.3 billion in rural water waste programs, $6. billion for rural electric and telephone infrastuckture. we also provide $1.3 billion for the single family direct loan program, $1.3 billion for rental assistance and $30 billion for the other program. it includes funding for the food and drug administration's food and nutrition program. it provides $6.6 billion for the women, infants and children program. this is $93 million below the f.y. 2014 enacted level and it's $200 million below the budget request. but i want to be clear about this, about the decreased funding, because it is of the -- a declining case load and large

carryover from previous years is why we're doing this let me stress that every person who sell jibble -- who is eligible for the program will be able to receive funding under this funding level in this bill. $82.3 billion for the supplemental nutrition assistance program, or sometimes referred to as snap. this funding level helps support more than 47 million americans each month. to support those in time of need in places like syria, south sudan, and central african republic, the bill provides $1.7 billion for overseas food aid. we are able to provide a $66 million increase in food for peace grants, and $13 million for the mcgovern-dole education and child nutrition program, offset from savings that we found elsewhere in the bill. the food and drug administration

receives $2.6 billion in discretionary funding in this bill. this is an increase of $23 million over the f.y. 2014 level. when the user fees are included, f.d.a. will receive $4.5 billion in f.y. 2015. within the total the committee provides $25 million increase. the full amount requested for food safety activities in the president's budget, and drug safety activities are increased by $12 million. furthermore, the bill includes $218 million for the commodities future trading commission. this is an increase of $3 million above last year's level, and is intended to address information technology needs. before i close, i do want to address one issue that's opened up by a necessary dialogue and local cafeterias and schools across the nation. it is the provision that would allow schools to seek a testimony pore rarery, let me stress that, a temporary waiver

from the current school lunch standards if a school district has lost money over the last six months' period as a result of trying to implement the new regulations. i have had a constant stream of letters. i have talked to people. received emails. i have had meetings over the past year from school nutritionists, from the teachers, school administrators. i talked to parents. i've talked to students. all concerned about the rising costs, the increased waste, and the declining participation in the school lunch program. to tell the truth, we have -- the students have been concerned about the taste. they have been concerned about the variety and quality of the meals. but again we have gone to the school nutritionist, to the teachers, and administrators that have identified where the real problem is. this is a real problem in many school districts across the country. some may not be, speernsing this problem, but many, many are

across the country. this bill acknowledges the concerns of schools and responds to their request with a certain amount of flexibility. it only allows schools more time if they need it. in fact, it provides something very similar to the flexibility that usda recently announced to the whole grain requirement. the benefits to farmers, ranchers, consumers, and businesses, -- businesses provided in this bill farout way any one or two objections a member may have about this bill. the bill represents our best take on matching funds with limited resources. we have tried to work hard to produce the best bill we possibly can within the resources that we have had to work with in this appropriations process. i thank the members for their attention. i would urge all members to support this bipartisan legislation. i look forward as we pass this bill on the floor as we move forward.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. -- with i rise in having co-sponsored this bill with -- as the ranking member on the agriculture subcommittee, appropriations subcommittee. i have to say i think we have worked very well together. we have worked together as chair and ranking over a period of time. it's an interesting prspective. i think we have crossed the cultural divide when a californian can understand the language of a alabaman and we have become friends. i have to say that probably 90% of this bill is something we all agree on. 10% is what we don't agree on, and it's a horrible 10%. a big ten%. the bill -- a big 10%. the bill allocates $20.88 billion which is the same as

what we came up with last year in the conference level. i appreciate the working relationship that mr. aderholt already outlined and the wonderful staff of both his office and i have and my office and the committee has. we all worked well together as a team. we bring this bill to the floor today. it's quite a privilege to be able to have this position. and i think that it's -- we all understand the privilege because the usda, u.s. department of agriculture, which is our main focus in addition to the food and drug administration and to the commodity futures trading commission, the department of agriculture, many people don't understand, was created during the civil war by abraham lincoln. it was a department that needed to be created as the united states was facing the western expansion. abraham lincoln was very insightful in realizing that people that moved out into the boonies needed help. there is no infrastructure there. there is nothing there. it became kind of a home eck --

home ex-- home ec department. they still have division of rural water, housing. rural telecommunications. it's obviously involved with all the science research in agriculture and big research section. the usda has almost a specialist in every county in the united states. and almost in every country in the united states as we have ag advisors in all our embassies. it is an awesome responsibility to govern a very complex system of trade and balances of fighting sanitary inspections, fighting diseases that get into this country. it's lot of fun also. i think that's why we get along well trying to put together a good bill. now, i voted against this bill in committee because of the concerns on several aspects. among these concerns are two

highly objectionable nutrition riders. i'm concerned that the bill would allow school food authorities to set waivers from complying with the improved lunch and breakfast nutrition standards in the healthy, hunger free kids act which we enacted in 2010. the bill would allow them to get waivers if they show there are operating at a net loss. i believe that rather than going backwards and serving the children in some schools less healthy meals, we should be encouraging the usda to continue giving schools the technical assistance they need to meet the standards. we should also be encouraging usda to continue providing flexible -- flexibility where warranted and meeting nutritional standards. the approach in this bill, however, is unacceptable. second, despite the recommendations of the maryland cal community indicating its consumption of starchy

vegetables exceeds recommended amounts, and the food intake data showing white potatoes are the most widely used vegetables and therefore have been by law or statute have been excluded from the w.i.c. program where you get vouchers to buy are fresh fruits and vegetables. this bill allows white potatoes to be purchased under that program. it's not necessary at all. this is a very -- it's an effective of the white potato lobby. very effective lobby. and i'm troubled by the inclusion of this bill requiring white potatoes to be eligible for purchase in the w.i.c. program. the w.i.c. program as i said gives supplemental nutrition through specified foods. and white potatoes now being one of them. there are some real concerns with this bill. this is the first time that congress has dictated as to what has to be purchased with those vouchers. we have never before mandated an inclusion of a specific food

item in the w.i.c. food package in the history of the program. while we are -- the funding levels in it bill are in general acceptable, there are some exsppingses. the most notable to that is the commodity futures trading commission. this is a commission that does reviews about $300 trillion in trade. that's almost $1 trillion a day. and what we do is provide funding to have the referees so they know when the trading is being fair or not fair. and it's essentially a review process, but they need money to hire those referees as we call them, and the president asked for $62 million more than we are allowing him to have to fill the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. those are big concerns. on the positive side, the bill restores the food for peace funding to the 2014 levels. it increases the mcgovern-dole program by $13 million over the

2014 levels. but i'm also concerned that in these programs there's an exclusion of important reforms that would have furthered the impact on each dollar spent on food aid. given the high level of need, ur food must be efficient as the -- the food aid has to be cost-effective and efficient as possible. i'm disappointed the food aid reforms enabling more people to be fed at lower costs were not included in the bill. i'd like to say that you're going to hear a lot of my colleagues raise issues on some of these issues because it is very important that we try to get it right and hopefully defeat some of the bad provisions in this bill. food is peace, america leads the world in food asussance. california is the number one agriculture state in the union. i'm proud to be the ranking member and bringing this bill to the floor for a healthy debate. i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from alabama. i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, the chairman of the full committee, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky, chairman of the full committee, is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i move -- i rise today in support of this bill. , s is the fifth of the 12 2015 appropriation cycle bills. it provides $20.9 billion in discretionary funding for important agriculture rural development and f.d.a. programs. with this legislation we ensure america's farmers and ranchers who contribute billions to our economy, as well as create jobs and put food on our table, have the resources this need to

continue to remain successful. we have provided responsible funding for programs that work to stop crop, plant, and animal disease that can cripple u.s. producers and entire industries. funding is also directed to programs that help conserve and protect farmland and improve water quality and food safety. in addition, this bill also provides funding for infrastructure development, housing loans, and aren'tal assistance and economic opportunities -- and rental assistance and economic opportunities for america's communities. these vital loans and programs help foster an environment for economic growth and will help rural america thrive. the committee also prioritized the safety of our nation's food and drug supply. targeting increases to f.d.a.

food and drug safety activities. the funding if this bill will maintain inspection personnel for meat, poultry, and egg products and facilities across the nation. i'm also pleased that we have included language that forces the f.d.a. to develop moreau ust guidelines for abuse deterrent opioid pill formulations. we would hold $20 million from the commissioner's office until these long overdue regulations are finalized. because the drugs on the market at are not abuse deterrent resulting in opioid addictions and overdoses and deaths needs to be corrected. drug abuse is a scourge on the nation and the f.d.a. can and should be doing more to battle this epidemic.

beyond funding these critical usda anded if fad programs, the bill also includes funding for a variety of nutrition programs making sure our most vulnerable, including our children and elderly, don't go hungry. the discretionary funding level in this bill is about the same as last year. as a testament to the hard work of this subcommittee to find savings wherever possible to make that possible. . each program within this bill has been closely examined to make the best decision where to direct tax dollars and where to trim funding. the bill also makes strides to make these programs more efficient, more effective and more useful for the american people and strengthens congressional oversight, particularly where it comes to mandatory spending on important nutrition programs.

for instance, within snap, formerly called food stamps, we've required the enforcement of a banff certain outreach of foreign governments and implemented -- ban certain outreach of foreign governments and, mr. chairman, the bill before us today is a commonsense bill. it makes every step to adequately fund important agriculture programs to support our most vulnerable citizens and to act with fiscal restraint. and i want to thank chairman aderholt, ranking member farr, subcommittee members and their staffs for all they did to achieve this very good bill. it was not easy because the allocation they had was not perfect, but they made due with it and they made due well. so i want to thank them for their hard work, congratulate

them on a good bill and i ask, mr. chairman, for unanimous support of this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield five minutes to the ranking member of the full committee, nita lowey from new york. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the efforts of the chairman and the ranking member in putting together this bill. while many of the funding decisions are appropriate, i do oppose this bill because i have team objections to controversial riders. first, this bill would begin to back away from much-needed efforts to make school meals healthier. according to the c.d.c., as of 2012 more than 1/3 of children anded a less on thes were obese -- adolescents were obesed. they are at a much greater risk of developing heart diseases, type 2 diabetes, stroke and forms of cancer.

schools should support and teach healthy eating habits. instead of providing waivers, this bill should help the districts meet this higher standard by providing the technical assistance and training to become compliant. additionally, bill language would make white potatoes eligible for purchase by w.i.c. participants, which is inconsistent for the purpose of the w.i.c. program to include only foods based on documented nutritional deficiencies. white potatoes are not there today bussed on science, and science, not special interests, should continue to be the guide for w.i.c.'s policies. the majority should have fully embraced the work and purpose commodity futures trading commission and fully funded the administration's request. i'm also concerned that the bill only provides half of the requested funds to expand and

improve oversight of drug compounding to ensure products are safe and effective. i thank the chairman for working with me to ensure that the summer feeding pilot program remains open to children in rural and urban areas and adding report language related to sunscreen ingredients, sprays and high s.p.f. products. and i very much support the additional $13 million in funding for the mcgovern-dole food aid program and the restoration of funding to the food for peace program. however, the bill should have also included the amferings' proposal to allow up to 25% of title 2 resources to be made available in cash for emergencies to better respond to multiple high-level crises around the world. this change alone would have allowed usaid to reach an estimated two million more

people in chronically food insecure communities. the bill provides sufficient funds to nutritional assistance programs such as w.i.c. and snap and provides needed discretionary funds for food safety programs within f.d.a. and the food safety inspection service. it is my sincere hope that we can improve these shortcomings before the bill is signed into law. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford. the chair: how much time? mr. aderholt: for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for five minutes. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to engage in an important colloquy with mr. aderholt of alabama and mr. costa of california regarding

the issue of mandatory country of origin labeling or cool for beef, pork and poultry. i strongly support this continue labeling that not only burden our nation's live stock industry but threaten tariffs from canada and mexico on a vast range of u.s. products. i appreciate your work to include a directive in the report language requiring usaid to discontinue cool should the w.t.o. compliance panel rule against the united states when they make their decision in a few weeks. however, i believe the final appropriations bill should include the strongest language possible to prevent further harm of the live stock industry and others on the retaliatory trade list. cool represents another failed policy and putting costly and burdensome mandates. ile the primary goal of cool

-- we are seeing sharp increases in the marketing of beef and pork, but trade retaliation from our closest trading partners will cost us billions of dollars in trade which will kill u.s. jobs, harm our competitiveness and have a long-term negative impact on american industry. as you prepare for conference, i hope we can work together to ensure the final bill provides the most appropriate response to this problem. and with that i'd like to yield to my colleague, mr. costa. mr. costa: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, we are again missing i think an opportunity with regards to the issue of country of labeling, otherwise referred to as c.o.l. c.o.l. has proven to be a failed experiment. we're seeing an increased cost to ranchers and processors in order to comply with these regulations that are ultimately passed onto the consumers. and to make it more difficult to provide the separate lines of animal source from different countries to fulfill the intent

of the law. this program has added nothing but costs to our cattle industry and to america and it's time, i think, where we make an addition to deal with these added costs. to be totally honest, we don't know what the costs are. the producers and processors have had difficulty putting together a formal economic impact which an analysis has never yet been done. finally and probably more important, it's threatening the trade relationship with our two biggest markets in the export of u.s. beef and pork and chicken, which is canada and mexico. should we all assume that the world trade organization rules against the united states, we will face harsh retaliatory efforts against the products that are produced here, the ones we are trying to encourage. not only in america but in my own state of california. no one wants to see retaliatory efforts made by canada or mexico.

i know in talking with producers and people in the industry in canada and mexico, they don't want to pursue retaliatory efforts. we have the data, the studies and the world trade organization experience has shown it's time we fix c.o.l. we want to see this problem resolved. we want to work to do it together. hopefully we'll use this legislation to do just that. mr. chairman, we hope you'll work with us to provide relief in the event that the world trade organization does rule against the united states. i yield back the balance of my time to chairman aderholt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: let me respond to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that i assure him that i will be committed to working with both he and with mr. crawford as we continue on this issue. i agree with my colleagues that the final w.t.o. ruling on the pending c.o.l. case could bring irreparable harm to various u.s. industries.

as been noted, report language has been included expressing the committee's concern that u.s. exports to mexico and canada will suffer an economic impact of approximately $2 billion in retaliatory tariffs. the report directs usaid not to implement or enforce the c.o.l. final rule for meet labeling should -- meat labeling should the w.t.o. issue a final ruling against the united states. again, i can ensure both of my colleagues this afternoon that we will closely monitor the progress of the w.t.o. in this matter and we'll respond if necessary to ensure our united states -- so our united states economy does not suffer. i thank the opportunity for discussing this issue and i look forward to working with you. mr. costa: i thank the gentleman. mr. crawford: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. farr: i yield two minutes to the second generation of the

roybal-allard family, ms. roybal-allard. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. roybal-allard: i rise in oppositions to this bill that underlying nutrition standards for school meals and the w.i.c. program. nutrition programs that support balanced diets are vital tools in protecting against childhood hunger and reducing childhood obesity. while i appreciate chairman aderholt's efforts to fully fund childhood nutrition program, i strongly oppose this bill because it weakens unnecessarily federal child nutrition standards. rather than allowing usaid to work with schools to help them meet healthier nutrition criteria, this bill undermines the national school meal program by allowing a blanket waiver to any school that says it can't meet the new

standards. in addition, the bill adds white potatoes to the w.i.c. food package, ignoring research findings that white potatoes are already consumed above recommended levels and should not compete with other fruits and vegetables for limited w.i.c. vouchers. mr. speaker, we have an obesity crisis in our country, and our nation's children and families are best served when federal nutrition standards are guided by science. now is not the time to lower the benchmarks that protect our children's health now and in the future. i urge my colleagues to support amendments that remove these damaging riders to the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: yes, at this time i'd like to recognize -- yield wo minutes to mr. win strup,

the gentleman from hoim. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. wenstrup: i want to thank you for crafting the agriculture appropriations bill on the floor today, a bill that supports american farmers, protects the safety of our food, keeps rural america vibrant and ensures our taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and effectively. i want to thank you and the committee for initiatives that's important to my constituents, the asian longhorn beetle. this pest, also known as a.l.b., is one of the most destructive invasive species. these beetles have been discovered in new york, new jersey, massachusetts and illinois and first seen in my district in 2011. mr. chairman, a.l.b. is devastating our trees. these insects burrow themselves into our trees where they lay larvae and feast off the wood. trees are becoming weak that

it's unsafe to even be near them. this doesn't affect one type of tree, unfortunately, but over a dozen different species. eradicating this infestation is extremely important to me and my constituents. unfortunately, the infestation has already come at a very high cost. to date, roughly 43,000 trees have been removed in claremont, ohio, including over 30,000 trees that have not even been infested. this is 43,000 less trees that can no longer provide shade on a sunny day or protect against erosion, not to mention this infestation in tree removal is directly impacting the property value of homeowners. currently cutting down the trees and removing trees is the most common method used to eradicate these beetles. my constituents are having their trees removed from their own private properties, turning front yards into lumberyards. mr. chairman, i ask you insert language into the conference report that would encourage the secretary of the department of

agriculture to support alternative methods to tree removal to combat the asian longhorn beetle. thank you and i appreciate your continued efforts to evad indicate this destructive pest -- eradicate this destructive pest and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, rosa delauro. three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. . miss delawyer heo: i rise in opposition to this agriculture funding bill. budgeting is about choices, and this bill makes the wrong choices for the american people. time and again in this legislation the house majority's chosen to put profits and politics before nutrition and food safety. it puts partisan ideology before impartial science, and the interests of big corporate industries over the needs of families and children. example, for decades our federal

nutrition policies have been banked on the principle of sound scientific research, and evidence based decisionmaking. until now, congress has never prescribed the details of federal nutrition programs. this bill circumvents the process for determining the appropriate foods to offer and the supplemental women, infant, and children program, or the w.i.c. package. to benefit industry, the house majority adds white potatoes to w.i.c. despite the advice and findings of nutritionists that white potatoes are not lacking in a mother's and children's diet. in fact, they are the most consumed vegetable in america. this is the same type of thinking from congress that got pizza called a vegetable. further, this bill would waive requirements for schools to meet the nutrition standards that we passed as part of the 2010 healthy hunger free kids act. these standards, developed by experts, improve school meals, remove unhealthy junk foods in

our nation's schools. standards have already been achieved at over 90% of america's schools, and are working to help kids choose healthier food options. house republicans are trying to appease special interests by weakening child nutrition programs in this bill. the bill also undermines manual laboring and creates carve outs for industries. it increases the chance of contaminated chicken on our kitchen tables. just so companies can make more profit. at a time when food borne illness outbreaks are a continual challenge, it cuts the food safety and inspection service, a linchpin of our food safety efforts, by $6 million. putting families at risk. and no permanent inspectors will be able to be hired. this bill dangerously underfunds the commodities future trading commission. it allows risky financial transactions to continue, putting the profits of wall street ahead of consumers.

these are all unprecedented attempts to use the appropriations process to do the bidding of industry and special interest at the expense of the public interest. our job, our job is to craft a budget that does right by the american people, that helps kids get the nutrition that they need to grow, that fights hunger in all of our communities, and that ensures that our food supply is safe. this budget fails in it all of these regards. and i urge my colleagues to oppose it and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves his time of the the gentleman from california. mr. farr: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, dr. holt. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i thank

my friend from california, the ranking member, and i rise in strong support of the nutrition standards for school meals and in strong opposition to the waivers to those standards in this legislation that would result in schools providing nutritionally deficient meals. federal child nutrition programs help alleviate hunger and poor nutrition and were it not for these programs, many students would not receive enough to eat. in new jersey alon, my home state, the number of children who were eligible for free and reduced school meals increased by 22% in the past five years to a to thal that now exceeds half a million children. according to a study from harvard released earlier this year, the cause of the nutrition standards, children are eating more fruits and vegetables. these standards are working. they are helping children receive better nutrition. we knew a decade ago that almost half of school lunches were based on prepackaged foods high in calories and fat and salt.

many schools did not offer fruits and vegetables as part of their meals. congress acted, and raised standards. healthy children are the source of our country's well-being, the effects of these new standards last long after the children leave school. and at a time when one in three american children is overweight or ebees, school nutrition standards can reduce the long-term health costs. at a time when medical costs are growing higher, we should be thinking of ways to reduce health care costs, especially by encouraging more healthful living. we should support mr. farr's amount when he brings it up that would retain in this bill the good nutritional standards. almost all schools are meeting the new standards now. the usda has provided flexibility to schools to allow schools to successfully implement the standards, and that's reflected in the high

adoption rate among schools across the nation. through the farm to school program that i helped write in the healthy hunger free kids act, hopewell elementary school, for example, in my district, is providing more local produce on their menu. this is helping the kids learn about healthy eating, learn where our food comes from, not a package or a box, but from the ground from farmers. we should -- the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: reserve, please. the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: i yield two minutes to the distinguished lady from new mexico, lujan grisham. the chair: the gentlelady from new mexico is recognized for two minutes. miss lujan grisham: thank you mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in opposition to the language in this bill that rolls back

standards and ensure our children are being fed nutritious foods at school. as a former state health secretary, i want to refocus this debate where i think it belongs and that's on health. what we are really talking about here is the health of our children. more than 1/3 of children adolescents are overweight or obese, and more than two million ahe dough lessents are prediabetic. mr. speaker, children who learn to eat nutritious food are more likely to continue those healthy habits as adults, and the best place to teach children about healthy eating is where they spend most of their time in school. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues concerned about the cost of nutritious food to think about the cost of obesity and malnutrition and to think about our children's future. my colleagues say that it's too hard. that children realry don't like healthy foods. and i agree that making change isn't easy, but we are going to

have to invest time and energy into teaching our children to make healthy choices. that is a change worth making. i thank the gentleman from california who has been a real leader on this issue. and i urge my colleagues to support his efforts to fix the bill. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: i'd like to recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the chair: how much time? mr. aderholt: three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my colleague from alabama for his leadership on this issue. and this is an issue where i think we all agree. we want children in this country to eat healthier. we all want to fight childhood he obesity. but i come up to this podium in opposition to this amendment. because i'm a parent. i have three kids in public schools. i coach youth football. i coach little league. i talk to children.

i talk to superintendents and principals in central illinois about this problem. and it's not just a problem that washington can solve. but it's a problem that washington created that we need to fix. there's a lot of plate waste. you look at a recent "los angeles times" article, upwards of $20 million per year, the los angeles california school district is losing to plate waste. $1.2 million less children in this country are participating in the school lunch program. the school nutrition program. and in my district, schools like monticello, illinois, have pulled out of the school nutrition program because they were losing upwards of $100,000 a year to comply with regulations that were thought of in concrete buildings in washington, d.c., rather than rural america. now, what have we done? we have asked secretary vilsack

to offer some flexibility to schools like monticello so that more kids will participate and that school district doesn't have to choose between following the rules and regulations set forth in washington, d.c., and choosing to hire two teachers. we have asked the white house and usda to voluntarily comply with the same rules and regulations that every school nutrition program, every school cafeteria in this country has to comply with. no answer. we have offered for secretary vilsack to come visit the school districts who have talked to me about this being a burden and a problem financially for them. still no answer. giving schools flexibility does not mean that i want kids to eat unhealthy. it means parents and local districts know better how to feed our children rather than bureaucrats in washington, d.c. i'm going to continue to advocate for more flexibility for these regulations so that we

don't lose more than the $1.2 million children that should be participating in the school lunch program. and what i want to know is why this administration and why the usda fails to recognize that there is a problem in rural america and a problem in our urban schools when it comes to money that could be better spent educating our children in this great country. support this legislation, do not support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: may i inquire how much time each side has. the chair: the gentleman from california has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from alabama has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. farr: i yield as much time as he may consume -- he says it will be in three minutes, to the gentleman from the great state of california, the author of the child nutrition act, probably knows more about child nutrition

than anybody in congress. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: mr. chairman, members of the committee, i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. these are not regulation that is were written in washington, d.c. these were regulations written in cooperation with school food service personnel, superintendents and teachers, school districts all over the country. after many years of deliberation, we continued to improve this program. plate waste is less now than it was before. what we discovered is children could select what they wanted to eat from a hlty menu, where we didn't have to worry they were selecting high sugar content, high salt content, they were eating what they liked, they became familiar with, and plate waste went down. the purpose of this program is not to increase the profits of food processors or the agribusiness industry in this contry. the purpose of this program is to improve the nutrition of children in our schools. why? because we understand that nutrition is directly connected

to how well those children do in the classroom, not because i say so, not because the secretary of education says so or secretary of agriculture because classroom teachers will tell you that if children don't have nutrition in the morning, if there's not food in their homes when they come to school, they start to act out in class because they start to drift. and the fact is the school breakfast program has made a remarkable difference. the school lunch program has made a remarkable difference in children not acting out in class and children being able to concentrate and to perform better, to get better grades, to graduate from high school. it's directly connected. now what we see is industry thinks this is simply some kind of marketing system for their products. it's like white potatoes aren't available to poor people. white potatoes aren't available to people on food stamps. yes, they are. but in the w.i.c. programs directly related to the health of that mother, the fetus, the

newborn infants, and the young child we have to think about what a healthy meal means to the healthy development of that child. and a surplus of white potatoes in that diet is not necessarily what you want to have happen. and in that schoolroom what we want is good nutrition. we are not going to let that be dictated by the industry. the idea that somehow school districts can't comply, 90% have complied, and 90% have complied within the additional amount of money that the federal government made available so they could comply. and the secretary has been reaching out to those districts in trouble. and i suggest those districts reach out to other districts in their area that are complying and finding out this to be helpful. this isn't some big burden by the federal government. this is working in 90% of the districts. our own school nutrition association of california is against this waiver. we have very creative people. in our committee we brought those people in and talked about plate waste and flexibility.

that was incorporated in this legislation when it became the law of the land. so on the whim, on the whim and misinformation that somehow it's not working, somehow it's impossible to do, i'll stand with the 90% of the distribblets and food service people implementing it. i'll stand with the health officials, i'll stand with the teachers that understand what a difference it means to have healthy and nutritious food available to these children during the school day. we've got to support the farr amendment. we've got to take care of our children. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. miller: and good nutrition -- the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. miller: the time has expired for this kind of legislation. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to briefly -- i

know this has been a controversial issue in this bill, and i've -- i sincerely think that everybody in this house is well-intentioned about this bill and so i in no way want to say that the other side is trying to hurt the schoolchildren. and to indicate that the republicans are trying to hurt the school kids is a complete misreading on what the republicans are trying to do and what we're trying to do in this bill. i think there's so many good intentions about this. i think what has happened is a lot of the regulations has come down to a lot of these school districts. every school district is different and it's hard to have a cookie cutter mentality of every school district in the nation. that's what really makes this nation many states, one nation, and they're all not the same. and what this legislation would would have some commonsense standards. i don't say that my colleagues

are bad-intentioned and i would never say that to my colleague from california and i hope he would not say that about me about this issue. we're talking about providing lunches and flexibility to students and to the school nutritionists to meet their needs and we're not asking this rollback nutrition standards, we're not saying it gut the underlying law. some of the comments were made, that would be some of the comments you would think that we're trying to gut the entire law. mr. davis made some very important comments when he spoke, but all of us want the kids to eat healthy meals and e want to see child obesity to decline, but simply providing school lunches that the kids won't eat and stopping there is not what this is about. student participation of the program continues to decline, and a lot of the students are now bringing their lunches while the kids that are on these meal programs, they have no choice but to eat this food

while the other kids are bringing much more unhealthy food to the cafeteria and watching them eat this other kind of food and it's just see y disconcerting to this. we all have the same goal. it's disconcerting to say that our kids would want to be obesed and unhealthy is untrue. i think it's important as we move forward with this debate to say that and i yield back the balance of my time -- the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. aderholt: sorry. reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i'd like to group, that the celebrity chef, his group is called the food policy action network, and they told us they're going to score the vote on this bill because of the provision we're talking about right now. and the amendment that i'm going to offer to strike the

provision. the reason i want to strike the provision in the bill is because it just gives it a blank waiver. it says you don't have to comply. it's too broad. we could have worked out some compromising language. more flexible language. just to give them a blank waiver is an opt out, doesn't get them back in, doesn't have guidelines for how you can improve and get back on track. so that's why i think it's a pretty extreme provision in the bill and ought to be knocked out. another reason is that we're paying for it. taxpayers of this country have put up the money and we're allocating it to this program and i don't think taxpayers want their money to go to food that is isn't nutritious, that don't help kids be healthier. i'm not insinuating the other side wants that, but i'm saying there's with that money, as in everything we do and the whole rest of this bill comes with conditionality.

congress is a heavy parent. we don't just give money out, we give instructions what to spend it for and not to spend it for, and when we're giving money for schools for school nutrition, school launch programs, school snack programs, we put conditionalitys in it. buy fruits and vegetables and serve them to the kids. i know there are places that say, well, those burdens, that's not what the kids eat at home or what they like and they're throwing it away. it's called plate waste. there's plate waste in our cafeteria here in congress. there's plate waste everywhere. there's too much plate waste in america. when so much of the world can't even get access to food, we're throwing about 50% of what we prepare every day, which is just appalling. but how do you change that? one, you get kids to like what they're eating. we have to encourage our kids eat vegetables. as was said earlier, you have to encourage your kids to take a bath. you have to encourage your kids to turn off the television.

you have to encourage your kids to do the math home work they don't want to do. we give instruction. i think what's missing in this whole debate is the instructional opportunity. frankly, america has got to face the fact that because we have not really put much attention into raising a culture of people that have values in food health, body health, that -- and the fast food industry has been very good at getting a lot of sugar, a lot of salt, and a lot of things out there that taste really great and people want to eat thatuality time. your body is not made to handle all of that. i think it's an opportunity for us to use the school nutrition program as a learning message. you know what, i point out when i grew up there weren't any fast foods. mcdonald's was the first fast food industry to come to our area. it came to the biggest city in my county in 1964. i had already graduated from college. so all my youth experience was

eating at home, eating in the school and there was -- it was all fresh prepared every day. didn't have the ability to get all -- if anything was in a can in the whole new industry who is developing to have fresh frozen, but -- so we have an opportunity to help our national security problem with food nutrition because the military officers tell us 75% of the youth today cannot qualify to get in the military. 75%. that is just appalling. and that's why they've indicated we need to have a school nutrition program. we also see it in health care costs. the biggest cost in health care. why we did this whole health care reform was to bring down costs. and the underlying all of that was, hey, we're going to raise -- avoid when people get diabetes and obesity and other things that are

preventable. so what better way to teach the cost of prevention through then -- then through nutritional health and exercise. and lastly, why it's important that we wipe out this provision of the bill is because we're paying. the money's all there. so the schools that would be able to get the flexibility that you talk about, the waiver, they get to keep all the money. they don't have any of the responsibilities to deliver the product, to deliver the nutritional foods. i think that's where we're wrong. we can't -- we can't just give them money and then no responsibility to be wisely spent on the purposes for which it was intended. so that amendment's going to come up later. i hope i can get support for this amendment across the aisle. with that i reserve the balance of my time -- yes, i will yield. how much time do i have so i can see how much i can yield? the chair: the gentleman from california has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. farr: i yield two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for two minutes. mr. farr: we'll just have a colloquy. mr. cohen: mr. miller was talking about white potatoes. how does this bill affect white potatoes? i saw this movie called "fed up" and white poe tators and carbs are the evil of what -- how are white potatoes in this bill? mr. farr: it's in the w.i.c., the women, infants and children, where we give vouchers to mothers of newborns or pregnant women in expectation they're having children to give them healthy -- give them access to healthy fruits and vegetables, we give them vouchers. in that recommended formula, what the voucher should be spent on is they're not allowed to spend them on white potatoes. why? because americans eat 90 pounds of white potatoes or potatoes per year. they have hash browns for breakfast, french fries for lunch, baked potatoes at night

and that's a lot of white potatoes. newborns or about to be born are not necessarily needing potatoes. nonetheless, the potato industry is very powerful here and they were able to get a provision in demanding that the vouchers also include the ability to buy white potatoes. that is what stired up this whole comment because congress has never dictated as to what you have to buy with -- to get into buying things that haven't been recommended as nutritional. mr. cohen: that's what i was astonished about, mr. farr, when i watched this movie. it was katie couric and i forget all the people. it was how congress basically acquiesced to special interests to change the dietary guidelines to the detriment of children and women and infants and carbo hydrates -- and the production of insulin, causing the digestive system and body to produce fat is the main cause of obesity.

it's not exercise, not pushing yourself away from the table. they discovered it's carbs and white potatoes so we're putting white potatoes back because of the idaho provision? arr fr if you like sausages or law you should never watch either of them being made. perhaps what you're watching is the white potato mandate is getting stuck in this bill. mr. cohen: sausages and white potatoes. thank you, sir. mr. farr: so, mr. chairman, we worked hard to try to put together a very good bill and the underfunding of the federal commodities trade commission and we'll be having amendments on those issues. th our time expired -- mr. aderholt: could i inquire how many speakers the minority

has? farr fr we don't have further -- mr. farr: we don't have further speakers. mr. aderholt: how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman from california has 1 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from alabama has one minute remaining. mr. aderholt: i'd like to yield to mr. davis of illinois. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: this is an issue that's misunderstood. in school districts like monticello, illinois, that had to make a tough decision to pull out of the program, they don't get the federal dollars anymore. they don't get the reimbursement, but they had to make the cost benefit decision of whether or not to still feed those who qualify out of reduced and free lunch out of their october owen pocket. it's important when the los angeles district is losing up to $20 million a year, it's a big deal because school districts are having to choose between teachers and complying with federal rules and regulations. i believe that the decision on how to feed children is best

left to parents and our local school districts. and you know what, the kids that are hurt the worst by this, it's why we're asking for this waiver. we're asking for the usaid to approve a waiver. nothing more, nothing less. mr. aderholt: they got out of the system because of a hard boiled egg was not appropriate or anything more than 12 ounces of skim milk was deemed inappropriate. that's what we're talking about, the regulations that are so out of whack. mr. davis: the kids that are hurt the worst are the poorest kids who don't have the ability to go out to the convenient store when they're hungry afterwards like many of the children of ours and feed themselves. and that's the only meal they may get that day and we can't have washington -- the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: let me -- the chair: 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. farr: let me explain that not a drop of this money, a cent can be spent on teachers' salary. it's not we're going to spend it on food or teachers'

salaries. this is only about food and the federal government takes sole responsibility for that. if states want to add something they can. but it's a federal program, one of the only solid federal programs in k-12 education. i'd like to yield a minute -- remainder of my time -- to mr. takano of california. mr. takano: mr. chairman, i rise in support of congressman farr's amendment that would remove the waiver that would exempt schools from providing even a half a cup of fruits and vegetables to their students for lunch. more than 200 education and nutritional organizations oppose this. while it may get difficult to get kids to eat healthier, it may be possible as 90% of schools are already meeting the standards. rodney taylor, the director of food services at riverside school district, which is in my district, sent me letter about the importance of nutrition standards saying, quote, children in our district and many others are enjoying meals that meet the updated school

lunch requirements from the usda from proving it is possible to have healthy children and healthy budgets. letting schools opt out of these standards will not help them move forward and will be detrimental to the children they serve, end quote. i thank congressman farr for introducing this amendment and i urge all of my colleagues to support it so we can move forward in the fight against childhood obesity. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. during consideration of the bill for amendment, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and shall not to amendment. no pro forma amendment shall be in order except the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for purpose of debate. the