[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 31, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9212-H9219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3161, AGRICULTURE, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 581 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 581
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3161) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2008, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3161
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
{time} 1215
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 30 minutes. During the
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 581.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 581 is a traditional open rule for
appropriations bills. This open rule allows any amendment to be offered
as long as the amendment complies with House rules.
Madam Speaker, the Agriculture appropriations bill may not get as
much attention as some of the others, but it is incredibly important to
the Nation. For the past 6 years, the bill has been underfunded by
President Bush and the Republican Congress.
This year, the subcommittee chairwoman, Rosa DeLauro, and her
colleagues have put together a bill that begins to restore cuts in
funding to the Department of Agriculture; cuts that have left too many
people hungry here at home and around the world; cuts that have
threatened America's food security and food safety; and cuts that have
denied rural America improvements and access to better technology,
better housing and a better environment.
Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to say that with this bill, we have
turned the corner. The fiscal year 2008 Agriculture appropriations bill
makes new and important investments in our people. This is not a
perfect bill, but it is a big step in the right direction. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
I am proud, Madam Speaker, to serve as the Cochair of the bipartisan
House Hunger Caucus along with my good friend from Missouri, Jo Ann
Emerson. I have a strong interest in making sure that our domestic and
international hunger programs get the funding that they need.
With this bill, more pregnant women and infants will get the
nutritious food they need through the WIC program. With this bill, more
children who eat a school breakfast or lunch will receive meals during
the summer months, when school is out of session, just like they do
during the school year. With this bill, the food that they are served
in school will be healthier, including more fresh fruits and
vegetables. With this bill, the Commodity Food Supplemental Program can
expand participation in existing States and can also begin
participating in five new States.
The bill continues funding to combat hunger around the world through
programs like Food for Peace and the George McGovern-Robert Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. There is
increased funding for the Food and Drug Administration and the Food
Safety and Inspection Service, allowing USDA to better oversee our
Nation's food safety, and more importantly, root out any food
contamination and threats to America's food supply.
Providing these agencies with the proper tools, including proper
staffing, is an important part of USDA's mission that usually goes
unnoticed unless a problem arises.
Finally, Madam Speaker, this bill increases funding for programs that
directly affect rural America. For far too long, rural America has been
underfunded and, in many cases, underappreciated. This bill increases
funding for programs important to rural America, including crop
insurance integrity, livestock competition, enforcement efforts at the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Rural Community Advancement
Program, clean water and business loans and grants.
Finally, there are increases in funds for technology access that will
provide grants for distance learning, telemedicine and broadband
development in rural areas.
Madam Speaker, before I conclude my opening remarks, I want to
address one more subject in a little bit of detail. For years we have
not done nearly enough, Democrats and Republicans alike, to end hunger.
I will say it again: Hunger is a political condition. We have the
resources to end it. We have the infrastructure. What we need is the
political will and determination to make it happen.
With passage of the fiscal year 2008 Agriculture appropriations bill
and the
[[Page H9213]]
recently approved farm bill, this new Democratic Congress is taking a
major step forward in the fight to end hunger in America and around the
world. We are moving in a new direction toward a place where everybody
in this world has enough to eat. We have much more work to do, but
today we can make an important down payment.
Now, during consideration of this bill, we may see attempts to cut
these vital, proven programs. Members will say that they, too, are
troubled by hunger, but they don't want to spend the money to address
it. It is the same old argument.
Additionally, during consideration of this bill, there may be an
amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway)
that would allow State governments to privatize the Food Stamp program.
Madam Speaker, this open rule allows the gentleman from Texas to
offer this amendment. I support his right to do so. However, this is
bad policy that was rejected in the farm bill. As a supporter of the
Food Stamp program, a program proven to provide food to hungry
Americans, I strongly oppose this amendment. The State of Texas has
experimented with privatizing food stamps. That experiment failed.
According to a letter signed by 21 organizations opposed to the
privatization of the Food Stamp program, ``before the State canceled
its contract with the private contractors, hundreds of thousands of
low-income children and adults were unable to access nutrition and
health care assistance that they desperately needed and to which they
were entitled by law.''
Privatization of the Food Stamp program failed in Texas. We should
not put more families at risk by extending that failed experiment to
other States. The amendment deserves to be defeated. I urge my
colleagues to vote no if, in fact, the amendment is offered.
Madam Speaker, I will insert letters opposing privatization of the
Food Stamp program into the Record at this point.
July 10, 2007.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: When the full House Agriculture
Committee marks up the nutrition title of the Farm Bill, we
urge you to oppose any effort to strike or weaken a provision
clarifying the existing requirement that state civil service
employees conduct the Food Stamp eligibility determination
process.
This ``merit-system'' requirement has been part of the Food
Stamp program since its inception. It is intended to protect
the integrity of the program and ensure fair and equal access
and treatment for all applicants.
We are extremely concerned about replication of the Texas
experience of privatizing most of the work leading up to the
final eligibility determination in its Food Stamp, Medicaid
and TANF programs. Indiana is already proceeding down the
same path despite the Texas failure. In Texas, before the
state canceled its contract with the private contractors,
hundreds of thousands of low income children and adults were
unable to access nutrition and health care assistance that
they desperately needed and to which they were entitled by
law.
When states privatize such important and inherently
governmental functions, the contracts often create incentives
for private companies to reduce access to the program in
order to maximize their profits. ``Streamlining the work''
often comes at the expense of the most difficult to serve,
including the elderly who have hearing problems on the phone
and have no internet access, the disabled, the homeless, and
people with limited English. In addition, it actually may
create new inefficiencies that delay the processing of needed
benefits.
Privatization is not necessary for states to modernize
their application process. This spring, the Government
Accounting Office documented that most states have
implemented call centers and internet using their public
employees. We strongly urge you to support the provisions in
the subcommittee bill that clarify the merit system
requirement.
Sincerely,
AFL-CIO; Coalition for Independent Living Options;
Coalition on Human Needs; Congressional Hunger Center;
Food Research and Action Center; Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights; Migrant Legal Action Program; National
Council on Aging; National Council of Jewish Women;
National Education Association; National Farmers Union;
National Low Income Housing Coalition; NETWORK, A
National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; OMB Watch;
RESULTS; The Arc of the United States; The Salvation
Army; United Automobile Workers; United Cerebral Palsy;
USAction; Voices for America's Children; Wider
Opportunities for Women.
____
June 15, 2007.
Dear Representative: We are writing to ask for your strong
support for a provision in the food stamp portion of the farm
bill that reaffirms and clarifies the existing requirement
for public employees in merit-based personnel systems to
conduct the eligibility determination process for the food
stamp program.
Over the last several years, the Bush Administration has
allowed several states, without going through the required
waiver process, to evade the clear Food Stamp requirement for
state agencies to perform the inherently governmental
function of eligibility determination.
The Texas experience was such a disaster that the state
canceled the contract in a little over a year but not before
the delivery system for Food Stamps and Medicaid was
destabilized. The state wasted over $100 million; hundreds of
thousands of Medicaid and Food Stamp applicants either lost
benefits or never got through the system to get them; and
personal financial information went to a warehouse in
Washington State.
Although Indiana is just in the early stages of a 10-year
contract worth $1.1 billion, early reports from some
advocates are very troubling. They report an intense
atmosphere of intimidation among the contract staff that is
pitting their job security interests against the interests of
applicants seeking nutrition and health assistance; new
procedures that are likely to create formidable obstacles for
many applicants to get through the process successfully; and
a policy that appears to prohibit staff from discussing the
application process for this public program with outside
advocates for applicants.
Public disclosure, privacy protections, and impartial, fair
administration are key elements in civil service and other
public personnel standards. They are designed to ensure that
the public has a right to and receives fair,
nondiscriminatory treatment that is accountable to the
taxpayers. These privatization efforts, in contrast, appear
not only to shield much of the operation of the new systems,
but also to reorganize them in a way that will make it very
difficult for applicants to get the assistance they have a
right to receive.
Increasingly, middle class workers find themselves losing
good jobs and forced to take new ones at much lower pay. The
instability of their jobs and the downgrading of their
economic circumstances mean that they may have to resort to
economic safety net programs such as the Food Stamp program
for temporary help.
We strongly urge you to support the provisions clarifying
the public administration requirement in the Food Stamp
program. Now is not the time to put the public interest in
private hands.
Sincerely,
AFSCME; AFL-CIO; American Federation of Government
Employees; American Federation of Teachers;
Communication Workers of America; International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers;
International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers; International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers; International Brotherhood of Teamsters;
National Education Association; Service Employees
International Union; The International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America; United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union.
____
AFSCME,
Washington, DC, July 31, 2007.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members
of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to strongly urge you to
oppose an amendment by Representative Conaway to H.R. 3161,
the FY 2008 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, which will be
considered today. This issue is of enormous importance to my
union and to the tens of millions of Americans which rely
upon the Food Stamp program for nutrition assistance.
The Conaway amendment is intended to undo a provision in
the nutrition title of H.R. 2419 which the House passed last
week. That provision clarified the longstanding requirement
in the Food Stamp Act that civil service employees conduct
the eligibility determination process for Food Stamps. It was
necessary because the Administration has reinterpreted the
Food Stamp law to allow Texas and Indiana to turn over to
private companies most of the eligibility determination
process to private companies.
The Texas experiment was a disaster. The State canceled its
own contract after about 14 months but not before thousands
of families failed to receive benefits to which they were
entitled, and sensitive personal and financial information
went astray. Now Indiana is proceeding down the same path.
The provision reinforcing the public administration
requirement in the Food Stamp program was thoroughly debated
in the Agriculture Committee, and several amendments to
strike or modify it were defeated. The bottom line is that
privatization of the eligibility of the Food Stamp program
will open up the floodgates to major costs in benefits for
the most vulnerable of our citizens.
AFSCME strongly urges you to oppose the Conaway amendment
or any other similar amendment.
[[Page H9214]]
Sincerely,
Charles M. Loveless,
Director of Legislation.
Madam Speaker, the fiscal year 2008 Agriculture appropriations bill
was written and considered in a bipartisan way through the committee
process. It is a bill that should receive strong bipartisan support in
the House. I urge my colleagues to support this open rule. I support
the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good
friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me
the customary 30 minutes.
Madam Speaker, this Agricultural, Rural Development, and Food and
Drug Administration appropriations bill provides more than $18.8
billion in discretionary spending for the next fiscal year. This bill
represents an increase in spending by nearly 6 percent over last year's
bill and continues the trend of the Democrat majority choosing to
provide spending increases well above the rate of inflation and putting
each taxpayer in the country on a path towards an average $3,000
increase in their Federal tax bill. Madam Speaker, this is too great a
burden for the American taxpayer to pay.
As many of my colleagues know, I represent one of the premier
agriculture districts in the country. Central Washington is rightfully
famous for its apples, cherries, wine and many other farm and ranch
products. The programs funded under this bill are of great importance
to the communities I represent, and there are some provisions in the
bill that I do indeed support.
For example, I am pleased that funding is maintained for rural
development, which provides critical financial help to rural
communities across the country. This bill also fully funds the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, which provides on-the-ground technical
assistance to farmers and ranchers dealing with soil and water
management issues. I also note that this bill maintains a provision
that I have long supported which allows Americans to be able to
purchase drugs in other countries at lower prices and bring them back
to the United States lawfully.
However, Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that this bill cuts
Agriculture Research Service funding by over $50 million compared to
last year. I represent three Agriculture Research Service labs, two of
which are collocated with Washington State University research
facilities. Federally sponsored agriculture research not only improves
crop productivity, it also helps farmers and ranchers find solutions to
environmental and marketing challenges.
Many agriculture research initiatives were already facing the
prospect of cutting essential research programs and researchers.
Surely, Madam Speaker, with such a big increase over last year's
spending level, we could have found room to at least protect the level
of research being conducted today.
I am concerned about the potential impacts of these cuts and what it
would mean for facilities in my district, in particular the Agriculture
Research Service lab in Prosser. I intend to continue to work with my
colleagues from Washington to ensure that we provide the funding
necessary to maintain the important agriculture research activities
already underway at these facilities.
I am also disappointed that this bill provides only $10 million for
the Specialty Crops Block Grant program. This program provides grants
distributed by the State departments of agriculture to assist the
development, production and marketing of fruits and vegetables. Earlier
this year, I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues in asking that
this program be fully funded at the $44.5 million level. This bill
falls far short on this account.
Madam Speaker, if we pass this rule today, the House will begin
consideration of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug
Administration appropriations bill. While this must be accomplished in
a timely manner, the Senate in fact will not begin consideration of
this bill until September and there is, frankly, a more pressing issue
facing our Nation today.
Watching the news and reading the newspapers, Americans are reminded
each day that the United States remains vulnerable to another terrorist
attack. It is vital that our laws keep us one step ahead of the
terrorists, but currently, Madam Speaker, we lag behind.
Right now, Federal law ties the hands of our intelligence community,
causing them to miss significant portions of intelligence, all because
technological advances have outpaced Federal law. We cannot wait to
respond only after another attack. We must act today.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I will be calling on my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question, we
will give Members the ability to vote today on the merits of changing
current law to ensure our intelligence community has the tools they
need to protect our Nation from a potentially imminent terrorist
attack.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I
just want to make a couple of observations. I find it somewhat ironic
that my Republican friends, on the one hand, complain about the size of
the bill, the overall amount of money that has been put into this bill;
and then they complain about the programs that haven't been funded
enough on the other hand. You can't have it both ways. I guess there is
no pleasing them.
The other thing, too, is the vote on the previous question has
nothing to do with the underlying bill. But I will remind my colleagues
that in addition to the many good things that this bill does for rural
America and for farmers and for feeding hungry people, there is a
national security component to this bill as well. This bill contains
money to help protect the American people from contaminated food that
may cross our borders into our country. This is about food security. So
this is a vital part of protecting the American people, and I don't
think that should be lost.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), my colleague on the Rules
Committee.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from
Massachusetts for yielding.
Madam Speaker, as a subcommittee chairman on the House Agriculture
Committee and as a member of the Rules Committee, I am pleased to rise
in support of the Agriculture appropriations bill before us today.
One of the reasons the farm bill that we just passed last week was so
hard to put together was over the past years the Republican
appropriators had repeatedly chipped millions and millions of dollars
out of mandatory farm bill programs, specifically in the area of
research, and research is an area that has been woefully inadequately
funded in previous years. As a result, the rest of the world has been
catching up, and we have been struggling to maintain our preeminence in
agriculture in the last few years.
We used to have a $30 billion trade surplus in agriculture, and now,
like in everything else, we are falling behind and having that traded
away. If we aren't careful, we are going to become a net importer of
agriculture for the first time in the history of the United States. It
is bad enough that countries like China, Japan and Saudi Arabia are
already our bankers. We cannot afford to let them become our farmers,
too.
This bill represents a stark difference from the drastic cuts we have
seen in recent years. Members of the Agriculture Committee and the
Appropriations Committee were vigilant to ensure that we met the
promises we made, especially in the areas of research, food safety and
nutrition.
I do have some concerns, however, about the horse slaughter
transportation language contained in the bill which could have
unintended consequences on the horse racing industry, an industry I
have strongly supported since my time in the California legislature.
{time} 1230
I am hearing from a lot of my constituents back home that have
serious
[[Page H9215]]
problems with the potential workability and practicality of some of
that language. My good friend from California (Mr. Costa) and I are
working with Mr. Chandler and Chairwoman DeLauro to correct this
problem.
Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It follows through on our
commitments, reinvests in rural America, improves nutrition for
millions of Americans, and puts us on the right track by making sound
investment in research, and will help us maintain our standing in the
world as undisputed agricultural leaders.
I also want to thank and say something about our wonderful
chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro. Without her help, we would not have been able
to write the farm bill we wrote last week. She is a tireless advocate
for her concerns in specialty crops and farmers markets and nutrition
and making sure that our young people eat nutritious food, and also
food safety. With her leadership, we got the farm bill done. With the
leadership of Collin Peterson, we got the farm bill done. And with the
leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we were able to write a good farm bill
for America.
I want to thank the chairwoman and all those who helped. She has done
an unbelievable job shepherding this bill through her committee and to
the House floor. I thank her and congratulate her on meeting the needs
of America's farmers.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the
Intelligence Committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly today to
point out something that I think is incredibly important. The ag work
that you have all done is important, and agriculture is certainly an
important part of our American economy. And our ability to feed
ourselves is critical to our national security.
But we also have another national security issue of which we cannot
get the attention that it so deserves. After 9/11, we put together
these commissions, the 9/11 Commission, to say, Hey, what went wrong?
We decided we would merge a whole department together and call it the
Department of Homeland Security to best meet the needs and safety and
security of the homeland. We did all of these things in preparation for
what we knew was likely to occur, and that is certainly another attempt
by terrorists to attack the United States of America.
And one of the things that we did through all of that is said we have
to give law enforcement, our intelligence services, every tool that we
can find to make America safe, because we have asked a lot of them.
We have said we want you to go to the most dangerous places in the
world and find bad guys and stop terrorist plots against the homeland.
We told our FBI to work long hours and weekends, spending a lot of time
away from their families, to make sure that no terrorist plot is
successful in the United States of America.
But today, we allow more conversations between known terrorists
overseas talking to known or unknown terrorists overseas to go unheard
because of a quirk in the law. We have been asking day after day, week
after week, month after month, please, for the safety and security of
the United States of America, let's have the courage to fix this law so
we can protect America.
Right now and today, there is a terrorist conversation happening
overseas that we are not allowing our law enforcement, our intelligence
services, to monitor. Overseas, with non-United States citizens. I was
an FBI agent for about 6 years, and I understand and appreciate the
probable cause standard of which we engage to American citizens, and it
is right that we do that. It is right that it is difficult to get a
warrant to intercept their conversations because that is who we are in
America and we should cherish it for our citizens.
But to tell them that we expect them to stop terrorist attacks
against America, and we allow all of these known conversations to go
unlistened to at a time when we know that they are heightening up to do
something is irresponsible, if not criminal.
This is important what you talk about. This is more important. We
should not leave this Chamber today, tomorrow, or at the end of the
week without fixing this critical national security problem to the
United States of America. It is wrong. We have soldiers in harm's way.
We have intelligence officials in harm's way. We have domestic law
enforcement in harm's way. Let's stand with them today, defeat this
rule, fix this problem, and move on to the other important issues of
the day. It is that important.
And don't kid ourselves. We cannot kid ourselves, Madam Speaker. This
is that serious. You know, when a very distinguished member of the
Cabinet stands up and says ``I have a gut feeling,'' that is not a gut
feeling. It is based on a whole series of pieces of information that
doesn't say when or where or what, but it says something is happening.
There is a ramp-up. There is lots of activity; there is lots of
chatter. Something is going on, and yet we stand here blinded. We can't
hear. We are not allowing them to see where the trouble is next
brewing. It is wrong. We need to fix it.
We should stand in unanimity today and defeat the previous question
so that we can fix this problem and move on and keep America safe.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am sorry my friends on the other side
of the aisle don't seem to put a high priority on agriculture and on
the need to support our farmers and the need to feed hungry people in
this country.
You want to talk about a national security challenge, there are 35
million Americans in this country today who are either hungry or food
insecure, in large part because of the Republican agenda to erode the
safety net over the last several years.
There is money in this bill for food safety and inspection, money to
support the Food and Drug Administration so people don't get
contaminated drugs.
No, I am not going to yield to the gentleman.
These are vital national security interests. And it is about time we
get our priorities straight. We need to pass this bill, just as we
needed to pass the farm bill to help fix the damage that they have done
over the last several years. So enough is enough. This is an important
bill. If you don't think it is an important bill, then vote down the
rule. Defeat the rule so we don't debate issues like agriculture and
food security and support for the hungry in this country.
I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for his extraordinary leadership, along with the Chair of
the subcommittee, my colleague from Connecticut, for her lead on
nutrition.
We are in the process of changing priorities in this country. Today,
the House will be taking up the 11th of 12 appropriation bills where we
will continue the process of taking this country in a new direction.
This agricultural appropriations bill makes a solid statement of
confidence in the future of rural America, and it makes a solid
statement of recognition about the diversity and vitality of our rural
economy.
Let me just mention a few things that highlight what this program is
doing.
Number one, a strong farm economy where we have our farmers being the
custodian of our landscape requires conservation; $980 million is in
this bill for conservation.
Rural development is critical to our economy. Broadband, among other
things, is a major investment in this bill, and we are treating the
rural economy with broadband, much like we did with electricity. That
has to be a full partner, not a second-class citizen when it comes to
the development of the infrastructure that is essential to building our
economy.
A strong rural economy is based on a well-fed country, and that means
prosperous farmers. There is a record $13.9 billion for school meal
programs, $39.8 billion for food stamps, and $5.6 billion for the
Women, Infant and Children program.
There is also in this bill, as the gentleman from California has
said, a major investment in nutritious food, vegetables and fruit. And
I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on that.
[[Page H9216]]
This bill and this rule is going to take America forward. A strong
rural economy is essential to America.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed my friend from Massachusetts would
not respond to my asking him to yield when he spoke just a moment ago,
and I am not discounting at all how important the provisions in this
agriculture bill, how important they are, notwithstanding some of the
problems that I have.
But this issue that we are talking about, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, or FISA, is very important and it is timely right
now. Right now.
Let me explain how this process works, because this does not slow
down. And I shouldn't say it doesn't slow it down; it slows it down for
one hour. Can't we take 1 hour to debate this issue?
If the previous question is defeated, and I will call for it to be
defeated on the floor. If it is defeated, then the rule will be amended
to take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments for one
hour to debate up or down.
This issue is very, very important and it is timely that it gets
acted on before Congress leaves for the August district work period. So
this does not slow down agriculture. It is not saying anything
disparaging about agriculture.
And, frankly, Madam Speaker, I should know. I live in an agriculture-
based economy. All of my neighbors are involved, in one way or the
other, in agriculture. So I should know the importance of it.
But I also know the importance of taking up this issue regarding FISA
and doing it right now, doing it this week, doing it today, by
defeating the previous question.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 7\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the Chair of the
subcommittee, who has done an incredible job putting this bill
together, a bill which will help feed millions of people in this
country and around the world.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concern and
his compassion and his indefatigable work on the issue of making sure
that those in our Nation who are hungry are able to get the food that
they need in order to be able to sustain themselves.
I also want to say a thank-you to my colleague from California for
his kind words and working with him on the farm bill.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to debating this bill and discussing
our priorities. We are going to cover a lot of ground today with a wide
ranging portfolio to accomplish quite a lot.
This appropriation covers many subjects. But what runs through every
element of this bill is the common thread of our Nation assuming
responsibility again for the things we are supposed to get right:
keeping our country safe and healthy, preserving and strengthening our
rural traditional communities, and thinking about problems that we have
on the horizon, like energy, and not just thinking about today's
problems.
I want to say thank you to Chairman Obey for his leadership and to
our ranking member, Congressman Kingston, a partner in this effort. I
believe together we have crafted a strong and bipartisan, responsible
bill.
Our top priority has always been to move with a clear purpose in a
direction towards several key goals: strengthening rural America;
protecting public health; improving nutrition for more Americans;
transforming our energy future; supporting conservation; investing in
research; and finally, enhancing oversight.
Our bill provides total discretionary resources of $18.8 billion, $1
billion or 5.7 percent above 2007 and $987.4 million or 5.5 percent
above the budget request. To be sure, a full 95 percent of the increase
above the budget request, or $940 million, is used to restore funding
that was either eliminated or cut in the President's budget, to
acknowledge and to meet our obligation to hundreds of communities and
millions of Americans.
When it comes to strengthening rural America, our first goal, our
efforts have been critical to try to facilitate growth and to soften
the impact of population loss in rural America. This bill provides
$23.1 million in grants to rural areas for critical community
facilities such as health care, education, public safety, day-care
facilities. It also provides increases in the community facility loan
programs. It provides $10 million more than the President requested for
distance learning telemedicine grants, and it includes $728.8 million
to support community facilities, water and waste disposal systems, and
business grants.
We also make significant investments in rural housing: $212.2 million
to fund $5.1 billion in affordable loans to provide housing to low-
income and moderate-income families in rural areas, providing
approximately 38,000 single-family homeownership opportunities.
On our second priority, protecting public health, the subcommittee
stepped up from spinach and seafood to peanut butter and pet food. This
has shown that our food safety system is dangerously inadequate and
that we must transform the way we meet our obligation to protect the
public health. So the bill provides $1.7 billion for the Food and Drug
Administration, $128.5 million over 2007, $62 million over the budget
request, and the first step in a fundamental transformation in the
regulation of food safety at the FDA.
{time} 1245
The bill directs the FDA to submit a plan to begin changing its
approach to food safety when it submits the fiscal year 2009 budget,
giving the committee time to review the plan before the funds to
implement it become available on July 1, 2008.
We can help with additional resources, but there's also a need to
have a corresponding commitment from management to perform its duties.
Funds are provided specifically to begin a critical transformation in
food safety regulation, enhanced drug safety functions, review direct-
to-consumer ads and review generic drugs.
Our next goal was improving nutrition, and I am proud of the progress
we made on this issue. With the farm bill last week, this bill includes
$39.8 billion for the Food Stamp program to meet increased
participation and ensure rising food prices do not diminish families'
purchasing power.
The bill also provides record funding for two fundamental food
security programs which our country's most vulnerable population: the
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, the WIC
program, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. These efforts go
hand-in-hand with ongoing initiatives.
$957.7 million for nutrition programs to confront our Nation's
obesity, instilling better eating habits in our children, giving them
the tools and choices to avoid diabetes and other dangerous health
conditions.
It includes record funding of $68.5 million for the expanded Food and
Nutrition Education program; $26 million to expand the fresh fruit and
vegetables and the Simplified Summer Food Program to all States; and
$10 million for specialty crops, yes, for fruits and vegetables.
And when it comes to other key objectives, transforming our energy
future, supporting conservation and investing in research, we step up
with this bill. This legislation strengthens bioenergy and renewable
energy research $1.2 billion, including loans and grants in rural
areas. It restores many of the conservation programs slated for
elimination in the President's request, including grazing lands,
conservation initiatives, the Wildlife Habitat Program, watershed
rehabilitation; and provides $979.4 million to continue assistance to
landowners for conservation efforts on private land.
And yes, with regard to research, $178 million for cooperative State
research education and extension service, and $108.9 million of that is
for research and education. Overall, we have increased research.
Finally, the bill is dedicated to enhanced oversight. We share the
concern about fraud, waste and abuse, and we have key language in here
which would allow the risk management agencies to use up to $11.2
million in mandatory crop insurance funds to strengthen its ability to
oversee the program by
[[Page H9217]]
maintaining and upgrading IT systems and other methods of detecting
dubious claims.
I'm proud of the bill, its priorities and the goals that we set out
to accomplish. I will continue to discuss some of the obligations of
this bill later today, and the Congress has chosen to highlight and
return to after many long years of inaction and silence. I'll continue
to discuss and recognize the values and the priorities that my
colleagues and I have sought to uphold, to strengthen and to honor with
this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/
2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Ag appropriations committee,
Mr. Kingston of Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I thank the chairman pro tempore of the Rules Committee for an open
rule on this. I think it is important, and we appreciate that.
I certainly thank the chairman of the committee, Ms. DeLauro, for her
hard work on it, and I have had a lot of input on it. We've had a lot
of good debate on this bill. So it is my intention to support it, but I
do have some concerns about the rules which I will address later, but I
wanted to go over the bill a little bit.
First of all, I wanted to get Members a little bit focused on the Ag
overall picture. Number one, the whole bill is about $100 billion.
We're actually debating $18 billion. There's another $79 billion in
what we call around here mandatory spending, which is not mandatory, by
the way. It is just that we don't want to go back to the bottom line
and start all over again. That's what the farm bill's going to do or
whatever, but I just wanted to point out, it's real important that the
ag programs are actually about one-third of the entire bill, that
there's a lot of nonagriculture, nondirect farm programs.
That's important because the rural community comes under such
criticism that, well, why is the farm bill so big when less than 2
percent of our population are farmers? Well, the reason is, of course
they feed 100 percent of us and we all eat their product, which is
food. I wanted to point that out and then show you this mandatory
versus discretionary portion of the bill.
The red portion we don't really debate; we don't control in the
Appropriations Committee. That's what they do in the Ag Committee, and
I don't think they did a very good job this particular year in all the
parts of it because they didn't delve into some of this stuff.
The discretionary portion, again, is $18 billion. It's above last
year's, and it's about a 3.6 percent increase over last year, or 5.9
percent. Because of that, it's going to be a veto target by the
President. The Republican Party says the spending level is too high,
and I think that we have to know that we can't pass this by a veto-
proof majority, and so perhaps if we went back to the drawing board
here it would be good.
The second point I want to make ties directly into this debate that's
going on on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Now, this
agriculture bill, should we pass it tonight or tomorrow, will go to the
Senate, and it will sit, and unlike wine, it doesn't get better over
time. It just sits, and what's going to happen, more and more people
will delve in and more and more special interests will, and it will
pile up with the rest of the appropriation bills.
It's a little bit silly. In fact, we're maybe like the little lab
rats going round and round in a circle in hopes of getting somewhere
when we know doggone good and well all that's going to happen in the
Senate is this thing is going to sit. And yet, because of that, because
of our urgency to pass Agriculture, we're going to ignore the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. And it doesn't make sense not to just
stop a minute or an hour and get that done and then come back to
Agriculture because it is not going to move.
There's some concerns also that I wanted to bring out when it comes
to the Food and Nutrition Service. Now, my friend Mr. McGovern has
worked very hard on hunger, and he has a sincere passion for that,
which is important. But the charge that we have underfunded hunger in
the past years under Republican control is really not accurate at all.
Here is the spending chart on food and nutrition programs since 2001,
and as you can see, it goes up in a linear manner, and now under the
Democrat rule it goes up about the same. There's not some huge deficit
in hunger. In fact, I would say to you quite clearly, we spent more
time talking about obesity than we did hunger, and I'm not saying
hunger's not something that we all have a lot of concern about, but
let's make no mistake. The spending on nutrition and food has gone up
steadily under Republican control, as it has under Democrat control.
I want to say also, I don't think increasing food stamps
participation is an achievement that the U.S. Congress should be
patting itself on the back. We should move to getting people
independent, not more dependent on government largess. We need to work
with people to get them independent. And so often our poverty brokers
in this world have a perverse incentive to make sure people don't
become independent, and I think we need to be mindful of that on any
government program.
The Chair has pointed out what we're doing on renewable energy, and
that is something that we think the Ag can and should lead on with
ethanol and biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol. We've taken great strides
in this bill, and I am confident that we are going to have some great
progress and great bragging rights on that.
One other issue that we're going to get into later is this overgrab
on the horse regulation that, if this bill passes in its current form,
you will not be able to export your horse or import a horse. That's not
the business of the Federal Government, at least not in a
constitutional sense. I believe that a horse is private property and
that you should have the right to sell your horse to folks in Canada
and Mexico, if you so choose, or take it to a horse show over there. We
will debate that later, and I thank the gentleman and I thank the
Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman
briefly by saying if the Republican Congress over the years has done
such a good job in combating hunger and food insecurity in this
country, why are there 35 million Americans that are categorized as
hungry and food insecure?
In response to the idea that we want more Americans to be
``independent,'' we all want that. The bottom line is that Republican
policies which took away indexing of food stamps back in 1996 has made
it possible for many people not to be able to transition for food
stamps.
The fact of the matter is the majority of people who are on food
stamps today are working families. They are trying to be independent.
They're working hard, and yet because we have failed to index food
stamps to keep up with the cost of living, we've all given ourselves
pay raises here. So obviously we feel the cost of living does have an
impact, but yet we haven't done it to the most vulnerable.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington.
I rise in opposition to the rule and also to the underlying Ag bill
for a couple of reasons. One is the current trend that we're seeing
played out on the floor of the House. We saw it last week as we
addressed the farm bill, and it seems like the bill that once was
designed to make sure that we had a low-cost, stable food supply is
moving money out of the rural areas and being hijacked into the urban
areas.
And you look at the pie chart of the total funding of the Ag
appropriation that was used earlier, you can see that 35 percent of
this pie chart is the agricultural side of the programs and 60 percent,
almost two-thirds, is the domestic food assistance. Now, nobody thinks
it's bad to feed people who are having a tough time, and we must be
doing a very good job of it because the number one problem for people
in poverty today is obesity. Maybe we're giving them the wrong foods.
We should go back to the basic foods that we present them, but this big
shift in funding is accentuated in the current farm bill that was
passed last week.
[[Page H9218]]
The farm commodity portion in the bill that we passed last week is
only 14 percent of total spending, and if you look at how it's been
reduced in this Ag appropriations bill, it's a continuation of movement
from helping the rural areas, moving it into the urban areas. And I
think that's a reflection that only 2 percent of our population are
farmers in America today.
In small States like the ones that I represent, in Kansas with only 3
million people, we only have four Representatives. And when we try to
fight for rural development and for rural agricultural programs, we
hope that we can keep our economy strong in those rural areas. But we
also want to make sure that the benefits that were designed to keep a
low-cost, stable food supply don't get hijacked and sent to the urban
areas. This is something that I believe has developed just over this
last year.
In the past, just a short story, how we have given farmers more
opportunity in the past, now that has changed in Ag policy. Opportunity
is dwindling for farmers.
In 1996, we had four farmers in Kansas who raised cotton. The farm
bill then, the Freedom to Farm Act, allowed farmers to expand their
product lines. Now we have over 50,000 acres of cotton in Kansas. We
have a dozen cotton gins. We expanded their financial base a lot by
giving them more opportunity.
Under the current plan, which is exhibited here with the shifting of
emphasis to the urban areas, we're taking a lot of the opportunity away
from the farmers and giving them less opportunity, while more
opportunity is going to the urban areas.
So I'm opposed to this bill. I'm opposed to the rule because I don't
think it gives us an opportunity to turn this trend around. I don't
think it gives us an opportunity to get the assistance where we need it
in the rural areas so we can develop the infrastructure necessary to
build a strong economy to allow the agriculture to grow for the future
so we have a low-cost, stable food supply well into the future.
{time} 1300
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, just in brief response to the gentleman,
this is an open rule. He can amend this any way he wants to. We hear
complaints from the other side that they want more openness. This is as
open as you can get.
So I don't know why he would have a problem with the rule. Obviously
we have different priorities in the underlying bill, but he can amend
this any way he wants. That's what an open rule allows him to do.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from
Connecticut to counter some of the arguments that were just made.
Ms. DeLAURO. I just want to let the gentleman from Kansas understand
about feeding programs in the United States, and I will get a copy for
you, send it over to you, something called the Carsey report that just
came about a week, a week and a half ago, which talks about 40 percent,
40 percent of children in rural America are dependent on food stamps.
This bill has gone a great distance to address the issues of rural
America, including the farm issues of trying to link what is produced
on the land with those who are in need of food, trying to deal with an
opportunity to create a more stable economy in rural America when the
President's budget, in fact, has left rural America pretty much
decimated; $940 million of this bill and this increase has been placed
to restore the programs mainly in rural America that the administration
had either cut back or eliminated.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington, and
I would like to respond to the gentlelady from Connecticut. It is true,
the Carsey report is true that 40 percent of rural America does rely on
food stamps. The problem is, there is a lot of poverty there because we
have not done the right thing on building infrastructure in the rural
areas.
It's the shift from this low-cost stable food supply we have had in
the past and the help we had to build that infrastructure. The finances
are now shifting to the urban areas because we have so many urban
Members of Congress. The Democrat leadership has been allowing that to
happen.
It's true there are $940 million put in this bill for the rural
areas, but it's an $18 billion bill. It has $18 billion; $940 million
of it is not a very big chunk of that.
I just think that we are seeing a bad trend here in America. The
Democrat leadership is allowing this trend to continue where resources
are being shifted out of the rural areas, because there are a high
number of urban Members of Congress, and they are leaving farmers
vulnerable who are trying to keep this low-cost stable food supply
available, and trying to keep the agricultural exports growing.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
The House of Representatives is expected to adjourn later this week
for the August district work period. This district work period gives
Members the opportunity to leave this humid area in Washington D.C. to
work in their respective districts and listen to what is on the minds
of the people that we all represent. Congressional ratings are at an
all-time low, and I feel that is in part due to the fact that Congress
is failing to address pressing issues.
I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, as
I mentioned earlier. Voting ``no'' will not delay the consideration of
the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration
appropriations bill.
Let me qualify that. It will delay it for 1 hour. It will, however,
give Members the opportunity to vote on the merits of updating current
law so that our intelligence community has the tools it needs to
monitor the telephone conversations of foreign terrorists physically
located in foreign countries. Let me repeat that, foreign terrorists in
foreign countries.
I hope that the Democrat majority will not stall any longer in
allowing the House to vote on this very vital issue. Each minute we
wait to act, our Intelligence Committee could be missing vital
information, therefore increasing our risk of another attack on U.S.
soil.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous material prior to the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just say I am disappointed with
my colleague from Washington and others who have come to the floor to
try to bring back an oldy but goody that the Republicans like to
invoke, and that is the politics of fear. Maybe Karl Rove went down to
the Republican National Committee and briefed them and said everything
else is failing for the Republicans, they are at an all-time low in the
public opinion poll, so trot out the politics of fear again and scare
the American people.
Well, the fact of the matter is, as the gentleman knows, the
administration, the Bush administration, and the Speaker's Office are
in negotiations on trying to reach an accommodation on this FISA issue.
If you don't believe me, it was in Congressional Quarterly. What
Congressional Quarterly also stated was that the Republicans in the
House, however, were trying to drag their feet.
If you don't want to join in the deliberation, that's your problem.
We will work something out, hopefully with the administration, and
bring this issue to closure.
But let me say one other thing why we need to be very, very careful
on this. We need to be very, very careful about giving even more broad
unchecked authority to Alberto Gonzales and his crew. Quite frankly, I
wouldn't trust the Attorney General to tell me the correct time, never
mind stand up and defend the civil liberties of anybody. That's why
Democrats are continuing to work with the White House to get a tough,
smart FISA bill to put together, and I expect that we will do that.
What the gentleman and others are going to decide to do right now is
plain politics.
[[Page H9219]]
Back to the main subject here, which is the farm bill. This is a good
bill for farmers. This is a good bill for people who are vulnerable,
who have been shortchanged by the administration in the Republican
Congresses when it comes to food security. This is a good bill for
America.
I congratulate the distinguished gentlelady from Connecticut for
working together so hard to put together a bill we can be proud of.
Vote ``yes'' on the previous question, and vote ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 581 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the bill (H.R. 3138) to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the
definition of electronic surveillance. All points of order
against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative Plan.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________