[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 140 (Friday, October 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9367-H9373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2744,
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 520 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 520
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 520 is a rule providing for
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2744, making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006.
According to the rule, all points of order against the conference
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report
shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present for consideration the rule
for the conference report for agriculture appropriations for fiscal
year 2006. I would like to commend Chairman Bonilla, Chairman Lewis,
and the entire Appropriations Committee for their hard work this year.
The congressional budget is an important tool of Congress, allowing us
to establish our priorities for the coming fiscal year.
The agriculture appropriations subcommittee has reported out a bill
that provides important resources to ensure that our Nation's farmers
and ranchers remain competitive in the 21st century. The legislation
enhances our ability to safeguard our food supply and addresses the
nutritional needs of children and the most disadvantaged in our
country. The bill also works to maintain and build fiscal discipline.
In total, the bill provides $17.1 billion in discretionary resources.
This level represents an increase of $258 million, only 1\1/2\ percent
over the fiscal year 2005-enacted level.
The bill continues our commitment to protecting human health and
safety. In an effort to combat harmful pests and disease that threaten
American agriculture, the Food Safety and Inspection Service is
increased by $20 million over last year for a total of $838 million, an
increase of $127 million above the President's request. And APHIS, the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, activities are funded at $7
million above last year for a total of $820 million.
I am pleased that the conference report fulfills our commitments to
important food and nutrition programs. Child nutrition programs are
funded at $12.7 billion, $879 million above last year and $245 million
above the President's request. To provide quality nutrition for Women,
Infants, and Children, the WIC program is funded at $5.3 billion, $22
million more than last year.
In addition, the conference report supports American farmers,
ranchers, and rural areas. The Farm Service Agency salaries and
expenses are funded at the President's request of $1 billion, allowing
the continued delivery of farm and disaster programs. To unlock much-
needed advances in agricultural research and allow American farmers to
have the tools necessary to continue to produce a safe and wholesome,
affordable food supply, the Agricultural Research Service is funded at
$1.266 billion.
USDA's Conservation Observations are increased by $72 million over
the President's request, bringing 2006 funding to $840 million, an
increase over last year. This will allow farmers and ranchers to
achieve important conservation and environment goals, recognizing that
farmers and ranchers are the original environmentalists.
This appropriations bill is an example of how Congress can attain
fiscal discipline and still fund our necessary programs. The conference
report on H.R. 2744 funds programs over the President's budget request,
increasing funding in strategic areas, while maintaining fiscal
discipline. I am impressed with the work of the conferees, and I am
certain the appropriations process this year will serve as a model of
how we can achieve responsible and responsive funding simultaneously.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a congressional district in Florida that is
among the top in the Nation in production of certain agricultural
goods. And I want to personally thank Chairman Bonilla and Chairman
Lewis and the agriculture appropriations subcommittee staff for their
ongoing commitment to the needs of Florida's agriculture, which has
been ravaged now by a number of hurricanes over the past 2 years and a
number of invasive plants, pests, and diseases.
I particularly thank Chairman Bonilla for his understanding and
diligence in fighting the spread of citrus canker in the groves of my
State. I know that the people of Florida deeply appreciate the
subcommittee's tireless efforts to assist our State's agriculture
economy.
I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying conference
report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending committee
Chairman Lewis and subcommittee Chairman Bonilla as well as committee
Ranking Member Obey and subcommittee Ranking Member DeLauro for
bringing a freestanding fiscal year 2006 agriculture appropriations
conference report to the floor today.
For the first time in several years, the agriculture appropriations
conference report has not been folded into an omnibus bill and is
allowed to be voted on up or down on its own merits. Until this year,
that has been a rare accomplishment, and I believe our distinguished
colleagues deserve to be commended for their efforts.
Mr. Speaker, while I will support the conference report, I do have
some concerns with the final conference report
[[Page H9368]]
and with the process by which it has been completed; and I am going to
let some of the others who are on the Appropriations Committee talk
about that in more detail. But, apparently, there were serious policy
disagreements between the House and the Senate that were magically
resolved without any vote by the conferees. There are examples of
identical provisions, passed in both bodies, being changed in the
conference committee even though House rules preclude such provisions
from being rewritten. I think we can do much better than that, Mr.
Speaker.
I also have some policy concerns with this conference report. One
provision that was dropped in the conference had to do with
privatization of the administering of the food stamp program. Senator
Harkin and others in the Senate had some serious concerns with a
proposal in Texas to allow Accenture to administer the State's food
stamp program. Their concerns led to the inclusion of a provision
preventing such privatization. Senator Harkin attempted to modify that
provision for inclusion in the final conference report, but his effort
was rejected. Ultimately, the provision was dropped altogether from the
conference report.
I am very concerned about a wholesale change like this in the food
stamp program. The conference report actually allows every State to
privatize their food stamp programs. We may find out that this is a
good thing, but I do not believe we should rush into such a big change
without testing it first in a few pilot programs. The food stamp
program is one of the best run Federal and State programs and should
not be subjected to such a wholesale change.
Another provision that I am concerned about is the country of origin
labeling provision. The 2002 farm bill set a date certain for country
of origin labeling for various meat, poultry, and produce products. I
was disappointed by past efforts that have delayed portions of this
provision. This conference report delays enactment of country of origin
labeling until 2008, and it is time to let the country of origin
labeling provisions take effect like the Congress intended when it
passed the 2002 farm bill.
I am also concerned about other provisions dealing with organic
produce, the way the Food and Drug Advisory Panel is regulated, and
horse slaughter. The horse slaughter provisions are extremely
troubling, primarily because majorities in both the House and Senate
voted for amendments banning the slaughter of horses for human
consumption. This provision should not have been rewritten in
conference, and I am disappointed with the conference committee's
actions on all three of these issues.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not highlight, in my
opinion, one of the most positive aspects of this conference report. As
many of my colleagues know, I am a strong supporter of the George
McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program. I am pleased that President Bush requested $100
million in his fiscal year 2006 budget, and I am pleased this
conference report funds the McGovern-Dole program at $100 million. It
is still far less than I believe we should be funding it; but,
nevertheless, it is an increase over last year's level.
Modeled after the U.S. school breakfast and lunch programs, the
McGovern-Dole program is successful, it is well run, and it is a
popular program that provides food for children in school settings
around the world. Named after former Senators George McGovern and Bob
Dole, this program is operating around the world and has fed millions
of children in countries like Afghanistan and Colombia and other
developing countries.
Mr. Speaker, it is not just I who supports this program. The
Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, sent me a letter earlier this
year expressing the administration's support for the program.
Specifically, the Secretary mentions ``the positive results of
increased enrollment, decline in absenteeism, improved concentration,
energy, and attitudes toward learning; and infrastructure improvements
. . .'' But beyond these, he mentions how important it is that
countries are already graduating out of this program. In other words,
some countries are getting ready to end their involvement in the
McGovern-Dole program because they are now able to provide the school
feeding programs themselves. They have become self-sustaining.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Secretary Johanns notes how important the
program is and how important proper funding is despite the challenges
facing the Federal budget. I will insert this letter from Secretary
Johanns into the Record at this point.
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC.
Hon. James P. McGovern,
U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McGovern: Thank you for the letter of
December 2, 2004, from you and your colleagues to President
George W. Bush, expressing your support for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
(FFE). The White House forwarded your letter to the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) for reply. We apologize for
the delay in responding.
This Administration greatly appreciates your support for
this very successful program. USDA now has 5 years of
experience with FFE and its predecessor, the Global Food for
Education Initiative. These programs have reached over 7
million beneficiaries and provided close to 1.3 million tons
of agricultural commodities as well as other types of
assistance to schools and communities. The positive results
include increased school enrollment, especially among girls;
declines in absenteeism; improved concentration, energy, and
attitudes toward learning; and infrastructure improvements,
including classrooms, kitchens, storage facilities, water
systems, latrines, and playgrounds.
We are especially gratified that FFE has resulted in
greater local commitment to school feeding activities. In
many cases, FFE activities have been so succcssful that local
support for school feeding is expanding to the point that FFE
assistance can shortly be ended. Examples of these
``graduating'' countries are Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Moldova and
Vietnam. We will continue to allocate some FFE resources to
these countries this year as we expand the benefits of FFE by
implementing programs in additional countries. Additionally,
the success of FFE has resulted in other donors becoming
involved in school feeding programs. These other donors
include the European Union, the German Agency for Technical
Cooperation, the Japanese Development Agency, Canada, and the
WorId Health Organization.
We agree that funding for FFE should be expanded in fiscal
year (FY) 2006. While the Administration is making a
concerted effort to cut the budget deficit, we have requested
$100 million in appropriated funding for FFE in FY 2006,
which is double the funding for the program in FY 2004 and an
increase of 15 percent compared to FY 2005.
Thank you again for writing to support this important
program. We look forward to continuing to work with you to
improve USDA's overseas food aid programs. A similar letter
has been sent to each of your colleagues.
Sincerely,
Mike Johanns,
Secretary.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I believe the world community, and that
includes the United States, can do better in combating hunger in the
world. There are 850 million hungry people in the world; 300 million
are children. Of those 300 million, half of them do not go to school;
and of those who do not go to school, they are mostly girls. We need to
change that reality, and the McGovern-Dole program helps mightily
toward changing that reality. The fact is we cannot effectively combat
disease and overpopulation and illiteracy or deal effectively with
sustainability in developing countries if we do not commit ourselves to
universal education; and the way we get to universal education, in
large part, is through school feeding programs.
I would also argue that the McGovern-Dole program does some other
important things. It gives people around the world who otherwise would
not have any hope, it gives them hope. It gives them a chance to
believe that their children will get an education and actually succeed
in the world. It gives countries the ability to look forward to truly
develop in a way where they can have economies that can support their
people. I also think it goes a long way in improving the image of the
United States around the world at a time when I think we desperately
need to improve our image, because I believe that this is the kind of
program that a majority of people, Republicans and Democrats, people
from red States and blue States, all think is what America stands for.
We are about helping people. We are about giving people a chance.
Let me finally say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope at some point the
Republican
[[Page H9369]]
leadership and the Democratic leadership in this House can come
together and focus more acutely and more effectively on the issue of
hunger here at home in the United States and around the world. There
are some problems that we cannot solve in my lifetime, but hunger is
not one of them. We can do so much better. We have the resources. We
have the infrastructure. What we need is the political will, and that
is my hope.
I want to thank Chairman Lewis, Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member
Obey, and Ranking Member DeLauro, along with subcommittee members
Emerson and Kaptur, who are strong supporters of the McGovern-Dole
program, for their hard work and for increasing funding in this program
to $100 million for fiscal year 2006. I truly appreciate their efforts.
Again, despite some of my concerns with the process and a few policy
matters, I think overall this is a good conference report. I will
support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
Massachusetts comments and certainly share his concern about the need
to deal with world hunger problems.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence), a gentleman who represents a group of people who are doing
their own part to fight that. He represents the breadbasket of the
world.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time.
Today, the House is set to consider the fiscal year 2006 agriculture
appropriations conference report, a bill of some $17 billion in scope.
But according to the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Speaker, the bill
violates the budget resolution by $199 million over the budget.
{time} 0930
The rule we are debating at this very moment is asking us to waive a
budget point of order to enforce the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot do that. These are difficult times in which we
live. The American people are looking to this Congress to make the hard
choices, to put our fiscal house in order. Today, as we consider this
conference report, for my part I will neither be able to vote yes for
this rule, but neither am I willing to vote no. The only reason why I
will vote ``present'' and urge other conservative colleagues,
Republicans and Democrats, to do likewise is simply out of a sense of
confidence in the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
I have met in recent days and recent hours with Chairman Jerry Lewis
of the House Appropriations Committee. The only reason I am not
prepared to vote no on this rule is because I believe that almost
solely by virtue of the integrity and commitment of Chairman Jerry
Lewis, I believe that before we adjourn this year, we will eventually
be back to the $843 billion number that this Congress labored to adopt
as our budget for discretionary spending, back when the budget of the
House was adopted last March. So I believe that at the end of the day,
Chairman Jerry Lewis will bring these numbers in line.
But as was the case with the legislative branch conference report
that was $85 million over the House budget, the Interior conference
report which was $52 million over the budget, this Agriculture
appropriations conference report is over the budget by $199 million.
And I believe it is imperative that while we recognize this chairman's
effort at the end of the day, at the end of this year to square this
budget up, that largely due to our colleagues in the Senate, this bill
exceeds the House budget.
It also, as I said in a letter to Chairman Dreier last night, it
violates the House rules in one other regard. Under rule XXI, paragraph
6, legislation is not to be considered in order where there is a
designation or redesignation of a public work in honor of an
individual, and this legislation does that, naming a public structure
after a sitting Member of the Senate in direct violation of the House
rules.
This bill violates the House budget that we adopted in March, this
bill violates the House rules, and for that reason I will vote
``present'' on this rule and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman who just spoke from
Indiana, I appreciate the fact that he is sensitive to when House rules
are violated. I just wish he would join with us when the House rules
are violated routinely on a number of rules that deal with a number of
important pieces of legislation.
I would also say, too, this legislation, I think, is good for a whole
bunch of reasons, but one of the reasons is because it provides money
for food stamps, WIC and feeding programs. Feeding people is, I think,
an important issue, and especially in the aftermath of the hurricanes
that have hit the gulf coast. There are a lot more people that are
going to need to take advantage of some of the programs that are
encompassed in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by telling
you how impressed I am with the firm statement of principle apparently
by the Republican Study Committee. Confronted with an appropriations
bill that they believe wrecks the budget, violates the House rules,
they are calling for a firm and principled ``present'' on the rule.
That is an inspirational example of how to combat wrongdoing. It does
give new meaning to the faith-based initiative. Apparently the
gentleman from Indiana thinks this is a terrible rule and a bad bill,
but because he has faith that by some process, apparently others will
be excluded, that the chairman of the committee will fix it, he will
refrain from voting against it.
I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Connecticut,
who fights very hard for the most important parts of this bill, in my
judgment, those which my colleague from Massachusetts alluded to, those
which try to alleviate hunger, food stamps and international feeding
programs, and I am pleased that they have survived the onslaught as
well as they have. I hope that when we get to the reconciliation
process, her efforts and the efforts of others who care about these
things will succeed.
There is one aspect of the feeding program, however, where I find
myself in sharp disagreement with the conference report, and at this
point I would include for the record a speech given to the Kansas City
Export Food Aid Conference in May by USAID Administrator Natsios.
[From the Kansas City Export Food Aid Conference, May 3, 2005]
The Local Purchase Initiative
(Remarks by Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for
International Development)
I am very pleased to be here today to discuss U.S. food
aid--what we have done right in the past and what we can do
to improve how we conduct our food aid programs in light of
new challenges since September 11, 2001.
Last year when I was here, I talked about the success of
U.S. food aid over the past 50 years and how we have assisted
more than 3 billion people through P.L. 480 programs. Over
the past twelve months, many of you have continued to work
with people in Sri Lanka and Indonesia whose lives were
devastated as a result of the Tsunami as well as people in
Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea who have been hit hard by the
equally overwhelming consequences of conflict and drought. In
addition, many of your organizations contribute to long term
development programs in places like Honduras and Bangladesh
that strengthen communities so that when they face sudden or
slow onset disasters, they are prepared and better able to
cope with the setbacks. You have continued to work tirelessly
to save and improve people's lives. I appreciate the
partnerships we have created together to address food
insecurity.
I want to take a few minutes now to talk about changes in
the world over the past few years and how the change has
affected our ability to meet food aid needs. Our Agency, and
particularly our food programs now operate in an environment
characterized by increased frequency and severity of natural
and manmade disasters, terrorism, instability, the HIV/AIDS
pandemic, corruption, poor governance and conflict which has
led to increased population displacement.
The United States Government is facing increasing demands
on its diplomatic, military and humanitarian resources. And
the resources are limited. But not responding is not an
option, so we prioritize and stretch the dollars to meet as
many needs as possible as efficiently as possible.
[[Page H9370]]
At the same time, the World Trade Organization continues
its debate on food aid issues in the context of the current
agricultural trade negotiations. Some of the other members
would like to do away with in-kind food aid such as the P.L.
480 Title II program. The U.S. has made two presentations at
the WTO in Geneva on U.S. food aid policies and programs. At
these presentations and in the negotiations we keep reminding
member states, and relevant international organizations that
we must come to an agreement that will ensure (1) that we
maintain adequate food aid levels to meet global needs; (2)
that food aid continues to be an internationally accepted
form of assistance when it targets food insecure populations;
and (3) that we minimize any trade distortions. I won't
belabor this any further as I know that there will be a more
in-depth discussion on trade issues over the next few days.
Let me just say that we will continue to try to ensure that
the WTO Doha Development Round does not restrict in-kind food
aid. If food aid is unduly restricted, inhibit development,
increase food insecurity and create instability in developing
countries.
In President Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy, he
acknowledged the importance of fighting poverty abroad when
he defined the three pillars of our foreign policy as
Defense, Diplomacy and Development. Recognizing that we
cannot address all of today's problems using our military
or diplomatic resources, he emphasized that what we do as
development practitioners can also serve to protect vital
American national interests.
In January of this year, USAID released a paper focusing
attention on failing, failed and recovering states known as
the Fragile States Strategy. The strategy provides a focal
point for the USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and
Humanitarian assistance in defining its priorities and in
carrying out its humanitarian assistance role. The strategy
promotes four basic objectives for carrying out work in
fragile, failed and failing states which are to: (1) improve
monitoring and analysis; (2) ensure that priorities respond
to realities on the ground; (3) focus programs on the source
of the fragility or weakness; and (4) create or use
streamlined operational procedures to support rapid and
effective response.
Failed states are both the incubator and sanctuary for
terrorists. Where there is no effective national government
to control terrorist organizations, these groups will
flourish. It was no accident that Sudan, Somalia, and
Afghanistan served as the base of Al Qaeda training and
planning. As the National Security Strategy document so
succinctly puts it: ``America is now threatened less by
conquering states than by failing ones.'' We now know by
painful experience that we are not immune from the
consequences that arise from state failure on other
continents.
Our underlying priorities, in working in fragile states,
are to increase stability, promote security, encourage reform
and build institutional capacity. This will address the
causes of fragility as opposed to simply targeting symptoms.
The President's 2006 budget proposes reforms which will give
USAID the programmatic tools to deal with fragile states.
In crisis situations, strategic programming of food aid can
stabilize a fragile economy by supporting local farmers and
maintaining demand for the locally produced goods, despite
the low purchasing power of those requiring assistance.
Famines can be demand driven or supply driven. A supply
driven famine is caused by reduced food production and rising
prices. In this case, importing U.S. food to increase the
food supply would be an appropriate response. A demand driven
famine is caused by the collapse of family livelihoods and
the inability of families to access food, even where there is
adequate supply and low prices. In cases where the food
supply is adequate and prices stable, but where families
cannot afford to purchase the food, an appropriate response
would be to purchase what is available locally to assist the
food insecure rather than adding U.S. food to the local
supply which could depress local prices and further aggravate
the economy.
As with all of our work in fragile countries, we need to
take a close look at all of our options when responding to
needs. The work is getting more rather than less arduous and
it is evident that we must expand the ways in which we
conduct our business. The old way of doing business is
insufficient to meet the mounting food needs in this new
environment given our limited dollars.
Despite all that we are doing, and all that the rest of the
world is doing to win the war on hunger, the number of
chronically malnourished people in the world continues to
rise, now totaling more than 850 million people. And though
the prevalence of undernourishment has fallen in 30
developing countries since the early 1990s, poverty and
conflict have contributed to its growth elsewhere.
In the past decade, and especially in the past several
years, conflict-related emergencies and natural disasters
have created global food needs beyond the capacity of the
U.S. and other donors to respond using the options currently
available to us. In specific situations, when food pipelines
break or when conflicts pause and we need to move food in
quickly to save lives, we need to be able to access food more
quickly.
In his book on famine, Fred Cuny stated that ``the chances
of saving lives at the outset of a [relief] operation are
greatly reduced when food is imported. By the time it arrives
in the country and gets to people, many will have died.'' He
goes on to say that ``evidence suggests the massive food
shipments sent to Ethiopia in 1985 had little impact on the
outcome of the famine . . . and that by the time it arrived
in sufficient, steady quantities in the rural areas, the
death rate had peaked and was already declining.''
Some of the starkest evidence we have of deaths directly
related to a slow food aid response took place in Gode,
Ethiopia, the epicenter of the 2000 famine there, which
threatened over 10 million people with starvation. While the
famine was eventually averted--the Centers for Disease
Control has estimated that in Gode, 20,000 deaths resulted
from the crisis in that region alone with an estimated 78,000
deaths in four other regions. Seventy-seven percent of the
deaths in Gode occurred before the major relief interventions
began in the summer of 2000 and more than half of the deaths
were of children under the age of five.
One way to respond to the needs more quickly is to purchase
food locally, but this requires us to have access to cash.
When food emergencies are a function of localized drought,
conflict or crop failure from disease or locusts with food
available close-by, local purchase can be critical.
USAID is searching for innovative ways to stretch its
dollars and meet the needs of the most vulnerable populations
with emergency and developmental food assistance. One way of
doing this is to provide cash which could be used to purchase
food in the country or region where an emergency is taking
place.
For FY 2006, President Bush has taken the initiative to
provide this tool to USAID humanitarian officers and has put
a request into the FY 2006 budget asking that $300 million be
shifted out of P.L. 480 Title II and into the International
Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA) account to be used as
cash for meeting emergency food needs. Specifically, the
President stated in his budget that ``This funding will
permit USAID to provide food assistance in the most timely
and efficient manner to the most critical emergency food
crises. This assistance will be used in those instances where
the rapid use of cash assistance is critical to saving
lives.''
One of the factors behind this request is the length of
time that it takes to ship food commodities from the United
States to an emergency. Shipping in-kind assistance from the
U.S. normally requires three or four months to arrive at an
emergency distribution point once it is ordered. Having the
option to purchase the food in the same country or region
where an emergency is happening would enable us to get food
to hungry people faster. It would save lives and would fill a
critical gap until U.S. commodities arrive at the site. In
addition to providing a faster option, local purchases of
food will, in many cases, save the dollars that would
otherwise have been spent on transportation costs, allowing
us to purchase additional food aid to feed more people.
The primary purpose of the Title II program is to save
lives and having more flexibility in our programs to use cash
to buy food locally will save lives. The fact that U.S.
farmers and shippers are able to benefit from the Food for
Peace program is an important, but secondary benefit. It is
not the primary objective of the program. The primary
objective is to save lives.
In responding to pending crises, USAID has limited options:
We can order a shipment of U.S. commodities which can be
expected to arrive at the distribution site within 3 to 4
months of purchase.
We can access food from pre-positioned U.S. commodity
stocks or swap commodities from other food pipelines.
However, the limited pre-positioned stocks are not always
adequate or suitable for every situation and increasingly
thin pipelines have lately rendered swaps infeasible.
Within the past year, we have established a pre-position
warehouse in Dubai, UAE to store commodities until they are
needed in an emergency. While this is extremely useful, we
cannot always preposition the amount or appropriate mix of
commodities that would be needed in every emergency. Also,
pre-positioning will not solve every problem. For example,
currently Ethiopia is facing an unexpectedly severe food
crisis and while the current supplemental budget has a
sizable increase in food aid, it cannot be used to order food
until the President signs it. When this happens, we will need
to order the commodities in the U.S., ship them, and then
wait for them to arrive in Ethiopia several months from now.
Needless deaths will occur while we wait. If we had the
flexibility to purchase food locally, we could purchase the
commodities in or near Ethiopia once the legislation is
signed, getting the food to the people who need it months
sooner. This is not a hypothetical situation--it is taking
place as we speak.
Another option that we have to meet emergencies is to
divert U.S. commodities headed to other programs on the high
seas. And while this has been done, it is an extremely costly
intervention. It means that another program will suffer, and
ultimately means less money for commodities.
The ability to purchase food supplies in local or regional
markets would give us one more option for meeting critical
needs. While this will not always be viable, this flexibility
will make a difference in the reduction of human suffering.
I want to be very clear that this requested change is not
an attack on the U.S. farmers or the U.S. maritime industry.
The contributions that many of you have made in feeding
[[Page H9371]]
hungry people overseas is notable and will continue to be a
critical, basic component of how the U.S. conducts its
management of food aid. The Administration has no intention
of changing how the United States runs its food aid programs
in general. This is not the beginning of a push to make our
food aid program an all-cash program. I personally would
oppose any kind of proposal to make more than one quarter of
our food aid budget available for local purchase. The greater
portion of U.S. food aid must continue to be purchased in
American markets where the supply is assured for emergencies
where large volume is needed.
One thing that I have been asked repeatedly is: How will we
sustain support on Capitol Hill for these humanitarian food
aid programs, if the benefits to the U.S. agricultural and
shipping industries are perceived to be decreased? The budget
for OFDA, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, and the
Refugee Program budget have been as stable in funding as the
Food for Peace budget, and these two budgets contain no
guaranteed purchase of U.S. commodities. Americans, including
those who have been intimately involved in our food aid
programs in the past, will strongly support USAID's effort to
improve the U.S. food response to humanitarian emergencies by
making that response as flexible and effective as possible to
save more lives and reduce suffering. I believe that
compassion for those who are suffering is part of the moral
fabric of this society. This was evident to me in the massive
outpouring of private cash contributions to help the victims
of the Tsunami and I believe that it holds true here.
Stretching our emergency resources further will also help
to protect our development programs from being tapped to meet
emergency needs.
I know that many of you have questions about how we will
run this program and I will try to answer as many of them as
possible.
The Administration has requested that the money be placed
in the International Disaster and Famine Account. This is the
emergency account managed by our Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance. However, the $300 million designated to this
account for the purchase of food aid will be managed by the
Office of Food for Peace, which currently manages the Title
II food aid program. As Food for Peace currently has the
responsibility for and the expertise in managing food aid,
they are the appropriate group to administer this money. The
money, like current Title II money, will be programmed
primarily through NGOs and the World Food Program.
One of the questions that I have been asked is: Is there
enough food available in local markets to meet our emergency
needs? Though local purchase will not support all of our food
aid initiatives, there is food available for purchase in
developing countries. In 2004 more than $680 million worth of
food aid was purchased from developing countries by WFP in
order to meet local food aid needs. Developing countries able
to supply food aid commodities have included (but are not
limited to) Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa and Sudan. This
method not only provides food more quickly and more cheaply,
it also supports the local economy and helps improve the
livelihoods of poor farmers.
We follow the principle of ``Do no Harm'' in local markets.
The $300 million will not all be used to purchase and program
food in a single country, but in a variety of countries,
reducing the impact on local markets. We also intend to apply
Title II legislated requirements such as Bellmon and Usual
Marketing Requirement, where local purchases are conducted to
ensure that there will be no displacement of commercial
sales, or negative impact on local markets.
I have also been asked several times why we can't just use
our notwithstanding authority under Title II to make local
purchases. I have been told in no uncertain terms by our
USAID lawyers that we cannot use our notwithstanding
authority for local purchases. Title II authorizes the
donation of American agricultural commodities.
Notwithstanding authority was not intended for, nor can it be
used to create additional authority that would allow the
purchase of foreign commodities. The notwithstanding clause
can waive existing federal laws which slow down emergency
response, but it cannot be used to invent new authority not
now available under Title II. As it is currently written,
Title II can not be used to purchase commodities locally.
We do not intend for this money to be used in purchasing
commodities from other developed nations. If food aid is not
available for local purchase under appropriate market
conditions in developing countries with some proximity to the
emergency need, the food aid will be purchased in the United
States.
I want to close with another example of where this type of
program could be used effectively.
In the past in southern Sudan, small farmers in the fertile
western farming areas have often produced small grain
surpluses, while hundreds of thousands of Sudanese in other
parts of the country have urgently needed food aid. If we
were able to strategically and carefully buy the surpluses to
meet food aid needs elsewhere in the same country, we would
end up sustaining and improving the lives of both groups.
Should signatories comply with the July Peace Accords, there
is a real possibility that agricultural output could return
to its former level and the region would once again act as an
important regional cereal supplier. However, if using donated
food commodities from the U.S. remains our only option, we
risk lowering demand for the local production and destroying
price incentives for the local farmers to improve their
production to meet future food aid needs.
I would be happy to take your questions.
Mr. Speaker, the issue was this. We give food aid, and that is
generous. Under the rules that will be maintained by this bill, the aid
can only be given in kind; that is, we ship the actual physical food.
That has obvious advantages in that it helps the American farmer while
it helps those in need. Particularly for nonemergency food aid, that is
an entirely legitimate way to go. In some emergency situations, maybe
in many, it is the right way to go.
The problem is under current law, the American foreign aid
administrators are not allowed to use any of this food aid by buying
the food near where the emergency happens. That is one reason why a
large part of the food aid is taken up in transportation costs. I
understand there are maritime interests like that, but that is not an
appropriate way, it seems to me, to go about trying to help them.
Inevitably, not inevitably, correctly, much of the food aid will be
that bulk aid. But to maintain a position that we will never use any of
the food aid to buy the food on site, nearby, in ways that it can be
done in ways that do not disturb local markets is a grave error.
What bothers me about this appropriation is not simply that it bans
that from happening, and I give credit to the administration and to the
President, Administrator Natsios, my former legislative colleague from
Massachusetts, who asked for the authority to do this. When that was
rejected outright, there were various compromises proposed. The senior
Senator from Ohio Mr. DeWine, I think senior, whatever, proposed a
compromise in which a percentage of the emergency aid would be
available.
We are not talking, those of us who support this, about making all of
even the emergency aid cash-based, but there ought to be a capacity in
the Administrator to put some of the money that is appropriated into
buying food locally. Now, I know, by the way, there are people on the
Committee on Agriculture that say, no, that would be bad for the local
markets. Mr. Speaker, I have a rule in politics: Try not to say
anything that no one will believe is really your motive.
When you look at this agricultural bill and American agricultural
policy and the devastation our subsidy policy wreaks on local food
markets, the notion that the people who make American agriculture
policy in this Congress are really concerned about the poor local
farmers is risible. We obviously have ways of dealing with the local
impact, and I believe that Administrator Natsios is absolutely right.
There is another argument here to which I give more credibility, and
that is some of the organizations that are engaged in international
development of food aid are the intermediaries here, and they get the
food and they sell it, and they then use the money in various good
ways. And these are good organizations.
I will note that two of the major organizations here, OXFAM and CARE,
have decided, no, they do not need to have 100 percent of the aid being
given in bulk, and that a percentage of the emergency aid, that is all
we are talking about, a percentage of the emergency aid being
available, not mandated, but being available when appropriate, to be
bought on site or nearby, not right on site, but nearby, that is
better. There are other organizations that have concerns.
I notice one of them is the Catholic Relief Services, which does
great work. I do want to express great concern, Mr. Speaker. I hope in
consequence to the what the President sent this House on Wednesday, I
hope that Catholic Relief Services, because they want to help people
overseas, will not be told the that Catholic Church cannot do voter
registration to get out the vote, which is what some people would say
if they helped people locally. So I hope that the restrictions on the
Catholic Church and other good organizations that the majority wants to
apply if they are doing things domestically to help the poor will not
also apply to their international efforts. I hope we will work out a
compromise.
Let me close by saying I was particularly disturbed by this language,
and it
[[Page H9372]]
is the Republican majority, the great believers in openness, the great
principled reformers, here is what their report says, the majority
report, on this bill. ``The conferees further admonish the executive
branch to refrain from proposals which place at risk a carefully
balanced coalition of interests which have served the interests of
international food assistance programs well for more than 50 years.''
In other words, we got a deal going here. Take your principles and
get out of here before you upset the apple cart. Do not come to us
talking about a more efficient way to provide emergency food aid to
people, because you might break up our political deal.
Some reform.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, as always, the gentleman from Massachusetts'
rapier wit is as sharp as ever, but in this case misdirected as his
faults are with the underlying bill itself and not with the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from
Massachusetts for raising some very interesting points. I had spoken
earlier about the McGovern-Dole program, which I feel very strongly
about. One of the good things about the way this program has been set
up is it provides flexibility so that if, in fact, you need to respond
to a particular need in a country, to provide food, and there is no
food that you can buy in that country, you can use American
agricultural produce to be able to feed people.
If, in fact, you can buy locally, if there is enough food to buy
locally, you can monetize our agricultural riches, and you can then buy
the products locally. You can also monetize it to help pay for
transportation of some of this food. So it seems to me that it is not
all one way or another way, it is somewhere in between, and we need to
continue to work this out. But you need to have flexibility in these
programs.
Again, I think the McGovern-Dole program is a good example of what
works.
I should also say that Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos are on
the floor from the International Relations Committee. Both have been
very, very helpful in promoting the McGovern-Dole program, and I am
grateful for their efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member on the committee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, if I can briefly address the just prior conversation, I
will commend my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) in terms of
trying to make some clarification on the issue of food assistance.
I also will commend my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) in
this regard: I know where his heart is on food assistance; it is where
we all need to be. I will tell you that we can discuss the nature of
the problem in terms of the distribution, but I think what was
particularly important in this committee was when we first had the
money presented for food assistance, it was less, less, in the
President's budget than we had in the prior year, and it was split
between our committee and sending money to AID, thereby lowering the
dollar amount by about $265 million.
We were adamant about trying to maintain a higher level of
assistance, and, I tell you, without having the benefit of getting back
that $265 million from AID, we were able to bring the dollar amount on
food assistance up to $1.1 billion, which we are proud of, and that is
part of the admonition in the conference report.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding and for what she says. I know she is very much on the side of
doing this in the right way, and confronted with particular facts, you
have to deal with things. So I do believe that a rational food aid
policy will include some flexibility on buying the food in an
emergency, time and everything else, but I certainly agree it should
not come at the expense of the overall program.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you again to my colleague for
yielding to me. I want to say thank you to Chairman Bonilla for working
to deliver this bill to the floor and for working across the aisle. I
have enjoyed working with him, even when we differ on issues and
priorities. I know that he takes the responsibilities as Chair very,
very seriously, and I have a deep respect for him for that.
In addition, I want to say thank you to his staff and the gentleman
from Wisconsin's staff and my staff, all of whom have worked so
diligently this year and for long hours. These are good public
servants, all of them.
I am particularly pleased that after several years we had the
opportunity to participate in a conference meeting to resolve several
outstanding issues in a public capacity. Indeed, we had an open
conversation and a discussion about matters including conflict of
interest waivers on FDA advisory boards, the integrity of the food
stamp program and our national animal identification system, to name
but a few.
{time} 0945
I only wish that the same spirit of openness and transparency with
which we discussed those issues had guided the conference efforts to
resolve them, because I believe what we are doing is important here.
The programs funded through this bill directly impact the everyday
lives of Americans, from public health to the FDA, to rural
development, infrastructure maintenance, environmental conservation and
preservation, nutrition assistance at home and abroad. Failure to
adequately invest in these programs will have a serious long-term
consequence for our Nation.
Unfortunately, in some of these areas, the bill falls short. I
believe the President's budget failed to meet the needs of rural
America, decimating rural development programs. This bill makes some
headway in reversing cuts made by the President, providing $80 million
more than the President's request for rural water and waste grants, for
example. However, I am concerned that this number remains below the
level in last year's House bill and well below the 2004 level.
Rural America faces serious economic development challenges, from
affordable housing and clean drinking water, to sewage systems and
access to remote educational and medical resources; and I am afraid
that this funding shortfall will lead to long-term deficiencies in
rural infrastructure.
In addition, this bill covers the funding of the most important
agency in the entire government: the Food and Drug Administration. FDA
oversees the safety of products that Americans use every day, the vast
majority of our processed and fresh foods, our prescription drugs, our
medical devices, and our blood supply. And this agency has had many
problems over the last year, from abrupt resignations of key staff, to
the recalls of Bextra and Vioxx, to hearings that have exposed the
fissures that have developed between drug safety scientists and the
senior management at FDA.
Along those lines, I want to say thank you again to Chairman Bonilla
for working with me to include funding to double the annual funding for
review of direct-to-consumer ads by FDA, as well as another $5 million
for drug safety at the FDA.
In 2001, the drug industry spent $2.7 billion on direct-to-consumer
advertising; but the FDA office, charged with ensuring that those ads
are accurate, was funded at less than $1 million. Doubling that amount
is a small start toward remedying the problem. The $5 million will be
devoted to the most critical aspects of drug safety.
There are other issues, of course, that I look forward to discussing
later on today, but I believe there are areas in which we have made
real progress and others which I hope that we can revisit in the next
budget cycle.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is the best of times and the worst of times, today
particularly. On this bill and on this rule, I want to first thank
Chairman Bonilla
[[Page H9373]]
of the Appropriations Committee and the staff, particularly Martin,
Maureen, Leslie, Tom, and Jamie, for doing an admirable job; and they
did it with the allocation figure they were given.
I also want to congratulate ranking member Rosa DeLauro for
completing her first cycle as ranking. I thank her for her hard work on
the food safety and FDA issues. I also want to thank Martha Foley on
our side. She is always ready with an answer anytime one asks.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Bonilla in crafting
this bill, which is an improvement over the President's budget request.
I particularly want to thank the chairman for working with me to find
$7 million for the Specialty Crop Block Grant program in full committee
and maintaining that funding in the conference report that we have
before us today.
Investing in our specialty crop agriculture is imperative, and this
certainly will be a happy day for the industry and all those who
produce our Nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts. I look forward to
working together to provide innovative and effective assistance to make
the specialty crop industry more competitive in the future; and, I
might add, this is the industry that does not receive subsidies or help
from the government.
Because of the work of this committee, my growers will now have help
with pests such as vine mealy bug and diseases such as verticillium
wilt, and we will continue a voluntary water quality study for the
entire Monterey Bay watershed.
But as with any legislation this lengthy, it cannot all be good. I am
very disappointed with, and strongly oppose, section 797 which was
added as a ``legislative fix'' to an Organic Foods Production Act in
response to a ruling by the courts in Harvey v. Johanns after the
conference committee had adjourned, subject to call of the Chair. There
was no public disclosure. This was all done behind closed doors.
These changes will not return us to the status quo prior to the
lawsuit. Rather, this legislative fix will weaken both law and existing
regulatory standards and restrict the authority of the National Organic
Standards Board.
For example, numerous synthetic food additives and processing aids,
including over 500 food contact substances, can be used in organic
foods without public review. Young dairy cows can continue to be
treated with antibiotics and fed genetically engineered feed prior to
being converted to organic production. Loopholes under which nonorganic
ingredients could be substituted for organic ingredients can occur
without any notification to the public based on emergency decrees.
If the history of OFPA has taught us anything, it is that changes
should be done following an inclusive and transparent process that
unites, rather than divides, the organic community. At the very least,
the process should have given all stakeholders a fair chance to vet the
proposed changes and their likely consequences.
Consumers are willing to pay more for organic food because organic
offers the most authentic of natural food. Consumers expect that food
carrying the organic label will be natural and should not contain
synthetic ingredients.
In a March 2005 nationwide survey, 85 percent of the respondents did
not expect food labeled ``organic'' to contain any artificial
ingredients, a finding that is directly in opposition to the actions of
the conference committee. The real losers under this policy change are
American consumers. Consumers who care about having natural food will
have to look for additional claims to organic, such as ``no synthetic
ingredients included'' on processed foods and ``100 percent grass fed''
on meat and dairy products in order to know that their expectations
have been met.
This amendment undermines consumer confidence in the integrity of the
national organic program. Back-room deals without proper debate
undermine the integrity of the entire organic industry, and we are
certain to visit this fix again and again.
Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way with this process. Despite
section 797, our farmers will be better off because of this
legislation, and I want to thank all of my committee members for
putting together such a good appropriations bill. I support the action
of the committee when we followed regular order, and when we did that,
we crafted a good bill. I only wish we would have finished the bill
together so the process was as good as the final product.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend Chairman Bonilla
and Ranking Member DeLauro for their great work and the members of the
committee, and I urge support of the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the speakers on
both sides of the aisle. I agree with them that Chairman Bonilla has
led a very balanced process as we move agricultural policy in this
country into the 21st century. It is a large appropriations bill. It
covers a wide array of needs in this Nation, from WIC and child
nutrition programs, to the conservation side and all that that entails
in terms of making sure that we are not eroding our valuable topsoil,
making sure that we have wildlife habitat, and making sure that
environmentalists understand that farmers are the true stewards of that
land. And frankly, at the root of the bill, the most important service,
is to allow American farmers and ranchers to continue to grow the
safest, most affordable, most abundant food supply and be able to feed
not only our country but the rest of the world as well.
It is a real tribute that there is bipartisan support for this
legislation to make sure that we are competitive in the 21st century,
that we are compliant with our global trade agreements, that we are
continuing to push ahead in fighting the war against hunger, making
sure that we continue to fight the war against obesity, and allowing
our farmers and ranchers to be competitive.
So it is a testament to the bill, and it is a testament to the
authors of that bill on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________