[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 31, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9231-H9251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 581 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3161.
{time} 1524
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr.
Becerra in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to present to the House for fiscal year 2008 the
appropriations bill For Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and related agencies. I want to say ``thank you'' to
Chairman David Obey for his dedication and leadership. It has been a
very busy 7 months, and we have been fortunate to have Chairman Obey at
the helm. A special ``thank you'' to my colleague, Congressman
Kingston. It has been a pleasure to partner with him on this
subcommittee, and I believe that we have accomplished a lot together.
We are working to accomplish quite a lot today, with quite a wide-
ranging portfolio.
This appropriation covers many subjects. Our top priority has always
been to move with a clear purpose and 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.
It begins with our fiscal year 2008 mark providing 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. 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.
Our first goal is strengthening rural America. Community development
is a key link to rebuilding rural America, preserving infrastructure,
building new opportunities, and confronting a tremendous gap when it
comes to educational and medical resources. To help close that gap, the
bill provides $52.8 million. That would double the broadband grant
program which the President's budget request had eliminated. It
provides $10 million more than the President requested for distance
learning and telemedicine grants and includes $728.8 million to support
community facilities, water and waste disposal systems, and business
grants; $31.2 million for community facilities; $56.8 million for
business and industry; and $70.3 million for waste and waste disposal
programs.
Clean water. Rural communities face tens of billions of dollars in
costs for safe drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. To
begin addressing these needs, the bill provides $500 million for rural
water and waste disposal grants and $1 billion for water and waste
direct loans.
In housing, the community held a special hearing to discuss economic
conditions in rural America with the USDA's Economic Research Service.
A recent ERS report found that 302 of America's non-metro counties are
``housing stressed.'' That is why we are making significant investments
in rural housing, including $212.2 million to fund $5.1 billion in
affordable loans to providing housing to low-income and moderate-income
families in rural areas, providing approximately 38,000 single family
home ownership opportunities.
The President's budget eliminated direct loans and shifted funding to
guaranteed loans with a 1 percent increase
[[Page H9232]]
in fees, making these loans more expensive and less accessible for low-
income families.
Protecting public health was another of our priorities. The bill
provides $1.7 billion for the Food and Drug Administration. That is
$128.5 million over 2007 and $62 million over the budget request; in
addition, $7 million in the manager's amendment in order for us to be
able to inspect produce coming in from foreign countries.
This is what the committee hopes will be the first step in the
fundamental transformation and the regulation of food safety at FDA.
{time} 1530
The committee 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 at FDA, but there also needs to
be a corresponding commitment from management to perform its duties.
When our pets began to die from contaminated pet food that originated
in China, the news forced us to take a hard look at entire food safety
systems abroad. Our renewed attention revealed inadequate protection
and an increasingly global food supply system. The budget includes an
additional $7 million, as I said, for FDA inspection of FDA imports. In
addition, we address vacancies in Federal meat inspector positions. The
bill fully funds the requested amount for the food safety and
inspection service at $930 million.
The bill also includes key language preventing the FDA from granting
waivers of conflict of interest rules to voting members of the FDA
advisory committee, and preventing USDA from establishing or
implementing a rule allowing poultry products from China into the
United States. The Chinese and others must be aware that trade cannot
trump public health and that their regulations need to be strengthened
to be considered an adequate trading partner.
Another of our top priorities is improving nutrition. For many long
years we have failed to meet our obligations, failed to act, while too
many Americans have gone without adequate healthy food. One in eight
families with a toddler, an infant, in the United States is ``food
insecure''; that means that they are hungry. One in eight families with
an infant.
Forty percent of children in rural America are dependent upon food
stamps. The progress we made on this issue with the farm bill last week
represents real change, and this bill includes $39.8 billion for the
Food Stamp program to meet increased participation and ensuring rising
food prices do not diminish families' purchasing power.
The bill also provides record funding for two fundamental food
security programs which serve our country's most vulnerable population,
the supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children,
WIC, and the Commodities Supplemental Food Program, CSFP. These efforts
go hand in hand with ongoing initiatives, including $957.7 million for
nutrition programs to confront our Nation's obesity crisis, instilling
better eating habits in our children, giving them the tools and the
choices to avoid diabetes and other dangerous health conditions. That
includes $68.5 million for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
Program, $26 million to expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable and
Simplified Summer Food Programs to all States, and $10 million for
specialty crops. What are specialty crops? They are related to healthy
diets in this Nation; fruits and vegetables that are farmed in my part
of the country, in the mid-Atlantic States, in California, crops that
are so crucial nationwide from New England to the west coast.
Our work continues with other chief goals. Energy independence. This
bill makes investments across the spectrum to grow our economy, create
new jobs, lower energy prices and address global warming. It promotes
renewable energy and moves us down the path to energy independence,
strengthening bioenergy and renewable energy research funded at $1.2
billion, including loans and grants in rural areas. The conservation
and stewardship of our lands will affect our children for years to
come.
This bill restores many of the programs slated for elimination in the
President's request, including the Grazing Lands Conservation
Initiative, the Wildlife Habitat Program, and watershed rehabilitation,
and provides $979.4 million to continue assistance to landowners for
conservation efforts on private lands.
We also have an obligation to maintain agriculture's critical place
at the forefront of groundbreaking research, maintaining our edge in
crop development, competitiveness, trade, nutrition, food safety and
even homeland security.
The bill increases funds for research and education through USDA's
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and the
Agricultural Research Service.
Finally, enhanced oversight. The committee is concerned about waste,
fraud and abuse in key programs and has included language requested by
the administration to allow the Risk Management Agency to use up $11.2
million in mandatory crop insurance funds to strengthen its ability to
oversee the program by maintaining and upgrading IT systems and other
methods of detecting dubious claims.
In closing, I think we should be excited about this bill, the goals
that we set out to accomplish: strengthening rural America, protecting
our public health, improving nutrition for more Americans, transforming
our energy future, supporting conservation, investing in research, and
finally, enhancing oversight.
Most importantly, I believe it brings us back to our Nation's most
fundamental principles; the strength of our communities. We have an
obligation to get these things right. Let us assume that responsibility
today, Mr. Chairman, and I'm pleased to submit this bill and I urge
favorable consideration.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to, first of all, start off by complimenting the Chair of the
committee. We have had a number of hearings this year. We've had a lot
of great oversight opportunities. I look forward to more. We've
thoroughly reviewed this bill, and there's many things that we found
agreement on. There are some things that we're going to have debate on
today and things that we'll continue to debate as the bill goes through
the process, but I want to commend Ms. DeLauro for a bill well put
together. Also, I want to thank her staff, Martha Foley, Leslie
Barrack, Diem-Lihn Jones, Adrienne Simmonson, Kelly Wade and Brian
Ronholm, and thank them for everything that they've done. And on our
side, Martin Delgado, Dave Gibbons. You'll note, on the Democrat side,
I pronounced the Republican side with equal ineptitude as I do the
Democrats. Jamie Swafford, Meg Gilley, Merritt Myers, Emily Watson,
Heather McNatt, Elizabeth Davis and Jason Lawrence and Scott Stevens.
We have a lot of folks who've helped. One of my friends on the floor
said, Well, how many people does this take? And I said, Well, you know
this is almost a $100 billion bill, so we all have to get involved in
it.
I also wanted to say something about Ray LaHood. Mr. LaHood is a
great committee member. He's going to be leaving Congress at the end of
this term and made that announcement this week, and I thought I'd be
remiss if we didn't say something about Mr. LaHood. He is a great
appropriator. He's a guy who had early on worked with the Hershey
Retreat to bring more bipartisan civility to the floor. He was
instrumental when I was Chair of the Leg branch subcommittee of getting
the staff gym started. Indeed, I don't know if we would have it without
him and all of his hard work.
And also, when we were in majority, he stood and sat where you are,
Mr. Chairman, many times guiding this House through hot debates and
emotional issues, and we're all going to miss Mr. LaHood.
I want to start off on the bill a little bit because so many people
think of agriculture as just farming. And yet, if we look at the
breakdown of this bill and we see this large blue part, the actual
money in this bill, the majority of it goes to domestic food assistance
programs. And it's appropriate that it is in the ag bill because so
much of what
[[Page H9233]]
we're talking about is national security, as seen through our food
policy, but direct farming programs are in this more purplish area, and
it's about 35 percent of the bill. We also have money for conservation,
rural development for the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, and
foreign food assistance. But I think it's important for people to
realize that this is not just a bill that affects the rural areas.
I also want to point out that much of this bill our committee doesn't
have the control over that we would like to. In fact, if you look at
this bill, we have an expression here in Washington called ``mandatory
and discretionary spending.'' Discretionary spending is spending that
Congress itself can effect on an appropriate bill. Mandatory spending
is what authorizing committees do. This would have been done through
the farm bill, for example.
Now, I don't like the term ``mandatory.'' I think it should be called
automatic spending, maybe even lazy spending, maybe even unchallenged
spending, since we debate it once every 5 years and then lock it up in
a farm bill. I think that the mandatory portion of this budget, since
it is almost 80 percent of the budget, should be opened up and debated.
I think there's a lot of things in there that need more scrutiny.
Indeed, of the $18 billion in the discretionary spending area, we have
been scrutinized and we've had a good look at it.
I want to make a couple of points. Number one, the bill at its
current level will be vetoed. We do not have a veto-proof majority.
This bill will pass today, but not by a veto-proof. The President has
made it clear that at a 5.9 percent increase over last year, he will
veto it. I think it's important for us to realize this since this is a
bipartisan body. This is not a veiled threat. The President has the
votes to sustain the veto, and so that's what's going to happen. I
think we would be better served getting together and bringing down the
numbers on this bill.
The second thing that I wanted to point out is there are a lot of
issues that we're faced with in this House this week. One of them is
the government health care program that's being pushed on the States
and taking away a lot of their discretion. Another one is the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. These bills are being pushed aside for
this bill, and while I have a lot of passion for this bill, being an
aggie myself, the reality is, this bill will leave the Chamber and it
will sit over with the Senate. The Senate Appropriations Committee, for
all intents and purposes, is defunct. We've been working hard. We've
been working long in the House to pass our appropriation bills on time,
and I commend Mr. Obey and the Democrat leadership to make sure that we
get the bills over there.
And yet, the reality is the Senate is going to sit on this bill, cram
it into another bill, stuff it into a shoe box called an omnibus bill,
and I think that's the wrong way to approach things. And at the same
time, we're going to have other things that slide.
Another thing I wanted to do is set the record straight on some of
the nutrition programs, because we've had and heard from a number of
people on the Rules Committee earlier today that this restores funding
for important and critical child nutrition programs. And you would
think that under Republican control, that the bill did not give any
money for food and nutrition programs. And yet, if you look at this
chart, Mr. Chairman, going back from 2001 on up to 2008, you can see
there's simply a linear progression in nutrition funding that has taken
place under Republicans mostly, and now under Democrats. But there's no
huge dip. There's no great spike now that the Democrats are in charge.
And it's important to set the record straight on that.
In fact, I'm one, call me old fashioned, who doesn't think it's great
to have lots and lots of people dependent on government programs. I
think we should work to get people more independent, and I don't think
that increasing these programs blindly makes sense. For example, the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program, I don't follow the math on that.
Last year the casework estimate was 490,000 people. The actual number
to participate was 463,000. And yet this year, even though the
projection's 464,000, the budget increase is $42 million for it, and I
don't follow that logic at all. If the number of participants is going
down, why is the spending going up? And the President actually had
zeroed that out. Why did he do that? Does the President not care about
hungry people? No, it's because they are eligible for food stamps.
There's another program for them. Why have two bureaucracies doing
basically the same thing, especially since you have electronic benefit
transfer cards which are very simple to do, and those were some that
this committee led in.
The other thing that I wanted to point out on the subject of
nutrition and hunger is it's interesting that we debated obesity a lot
more than we have debated hunger. I think that's probably a good thing,
but I think, on the other hand, it shows that there hasn't been this
horrible hunger crisis under Republican rule.
Another point I want to say about this bill, the farm service
agencies, right now farm service agencies, there are 58 of them that
have no staff. The Chair and I have agreed that these should be closed
down. I think that's a step in the right direction; 139 of them have
one employee and 338 have two employees and 515 have three employees.
Now, I've heard it said about the VA that you can close down any
veterans clinic you want in America as long as it's not located in a
congressional district. Well, I guess the same is true with military
bases, and it's true with FSA offices and other offices. We talk about
wanting to balance the budget, but when it comes home to our own
district, we all backpedal and say, no, we don't want anything closed.
These decisions aren't easy, but we have to be leaders on this and
not shirk our responsibility. I think this committee kind of worked
through it, and I'm hoping that we're going to continue to work through
it as the bill moves through the process.
Renewable energy. There's so much right now in the rural areas from
the subject of ethanol, biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol and other
economies that we can go out and capitalize in and help bring
alternative fuel to America.
{time} 1545
In my home State of Georgia, there are about five or six ethanol
plants. There are 121 of them nationally, but Georgia has on the
drawing table right now to build another 80 ethanol plants just in our
one State. That would put Georgia on the national leaders level. I am
excited about that. Because if Georgia can do that, then certainly
other States should be doing that; and I am glad that this bill puts a
lot of investment into renewable energy.
On broadband and distance learning, I think we all have a commitment
to that. Two things that the Chair and I have agreed on that are very
important is, one, we don't want the government programs to be
competing with the private sector. If the private sector is already
there, why put a government program out there? And, number two, for the
retired stockbroker who has bought his mountain house on the top of the
beautiful mountains in Colorado, why should we care if his laptop is
hooked up or not? I don't think we have to waste taxpayer money so that
he can check his stock quotes while he is in retirement.
I also want to talk a little bit about a horse amendment that we
have, some language in the bill that prohibits people who own horses
from taking these horses across international lines. If you own a horse
in America and this bill passes with the language that is in it, you
will not be allowed to take that horse to Mexico or Canada for any
purpose.
Now, I understand that there are those who don't want horses to be
slaughtered. Most of them are people who have never owned horses, who
don't understand horse owners or who are intimidated by special
interest groups in Washington. But the reality is sometimes you have to
put a horse down, and since we have a problem with that in America, as
outlawed by this Congress or the previous Congress, then this bill does
give some flexibility to those people. But, in trying to close that
loophole, what the committee did is they said now you can't take your
horse out of the country and you can't bring one in. It is a ridiculous
part of the language, and I am going to move to strike it.
[[Page H9234]]
Another issue that I have some concerns about is drug reimportation.
I think drug reimportation is a major policy shift, and I believe that
we should have a vote on that.
I commend the Chair in reducing the number of earmarks. The earmarks
last year in the bill were about 4\1/2\ percent. We are starting out at
about a 2 percent level. I think that is a great reduction not just in
the dollar amount but in the number of earmarks.
And one other area that I was disappointed in that I want to point
out is risk-based inspection. This is where USDA inspectors go to food-
processing plants and, rather than dwell on all of them equally over
time, they focus on the ones who are the bad actors, the ones who have
the older equipment and the shoddy practices. They put more time there.
It is a common business decision, and yet we are interfering with the
USDA's right to do that. It is called ``risk-based inspection.'' I
think it is very important to a good, clean, healthy food supply, and
we have stopped RBI. I think that is a mistake.
But, overall, there is a lot that's good in the bill. I look forward
to the debate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for yielding to me.
I am the only Californian that sits on the Agriculture Appropriations
Committee, and I am very proud that this bill is in partnership with
the progressive new provisions that were adopted last week in the farm
bill. This spends the money to implement those provisions. As the Chair
just said, this bill takes us in a new direction, a direction that
rural America can be really proud of.
Many people know California as the most populous State and think of
our large metropolitan areas. But few know that California is the
number one ag-producing State in the United States. Every one of the 58
counties in California produces agriculture, from the smallest county
in San Francisco, which has nursery and flower stock, to the most
populous county in California, Los Angeles County, with row crops and
cattle ranches.
The new leadership in Congress has taken us in a new direction. That
direction is good news for rural America. That is good news for fresh
foods, for fresh vegetables and fresh fruits to get into the diet. This
bill takes us in a new direction for consumers. A new direction so that
people have choices. A new direction for green technology to be used in
the energy field. A new direction for conservation to be a part of good
management practices.
I applaud the committee's new Chair for taking us in a new direction
and the opportunity for farming in America to be economically viable.
This is good because it preserves open space and preserves the rural
character, which is such a strength of this country.
For California, this is good news. Our agriculture is like our
technology. It's changing, always changing. It needs to be state-of-
the-art of technology, of research, of university work. We are the
leaders in organic growing, from wines to artichokes. I am proud to
represent the part of California that is called the ``Salad Bowl
Capital of the World.'' The farmers who implement the best management
practices in caring not only for their farm workers, and there is a big
discussion on that in issues with immigration, but we have the largest
farm worker force in the United States and they are now getting paid
good wages. In fact, a lot of them have their own health care plans,
which most Americans don't have, and they have 401(k)s for their
families and scholarships for their children to go to school. This is a
new attitude about farm workers.
I want to thank Congresswoman DeLauro, the Chair of this committee,
for taking America into a new direction, a more healthy direction.
Let's reject the reckless amendments to this bill that undermine the
positive gains made for America. This is a good appropriations bill. I
applaud the Chair, Mr. Obey, for bringing it to the floor and to the
members of the committee, and I urge all my colleagues to adopt this
bill.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by
congratulating the hardest-working Member of the Congress, Chairwoman
Rosa DeLauro, for this outstanding bill.
Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the Appropriations Agriculture
Subcommittee, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 3161, the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill. Again, I want to congratulate
Chairwoman DeLauro and the subcommittee staff for the product here
before us today. I also want to thank Ranking Member Kingston of the
minority subcommittee staff for working with us to produce this
product.
Over the past 8 months, I have learned a lot about agriculture
policy. When asked why I serve on this subcommittee, considering my
largely urban and suburban district, I quickly respond by saying this
bill touches the lives of 647,000 residents of the Second District of
Illinois. We all eat, we all want safe food, and we all want safe
medicines.
With the recent passage of the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of
2007, our Nation's agriculture policy and spending reflects our growing
investments not only in rural development and commodity programs but in
nutrition, conservation, and renewable energy. We want to continue to
support our farmers as well as feed the hungry, protect our Nation's
food supply, and invest in research.
One out of five Americans at some point in time in their lives will
participate in at least one domestic food assistance program. Our
nutrition programs serve as the first line of defense against combating
hunger by helping low-income families purchase food. This bill
illustrates Congress's commitment to protecting our country's most
vulnerable populations. It accomplishes the following:
It increases the Food Stamp Program by $1.7 billion and creates a $3
billion contingency reserve, which helps feed over 26 million people
annually. It restores the President's proposed cuts to the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program and expands the program that serves over
485,000 people monthly by adding five new States. It appropriates $5.6
billion to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children and restores State grants to help administer the
program. It supports the expansion of the simplified summer school food
program that provides up to two meals a day to children under the age
of 18 during the summer.
This bill also addresses a wide variety of needs, ranging from
increased grants and loans for rural communities to fully funding the
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service.
The increases in this bill are sensible, they are prudent, they
reflect our priorities, reinforcing our commitment to feed the hungry,
to house the needy, and to protect us all.
I recommend that my colleagues vote against any amendments cutting
these vital programs, and I strongly urge them to vote for this bill.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I think we kind of
know where we are heading on various amendments. I look forward to that
amendment.
And, again, I have enjoyed working with you and the staff. You have a
semi-good bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I, too, want to say thank you to my colleague, Mr. Kingston, in
working with him; and it is not the first time we have had an
opportunity to work together. We have been working together over the
years.
As I said, I am very proud of the bill and the goals that we set out
and the direction that we set out to strengthen rural America and deal
with our public health and nutrition, energy, conservation and looking
at how we invest in our research.
I look forward to the balance of our time and the amendment process,
but I do, too, want to associate myself with
[[Page H9235]]
my colleague from Georgia's remarks about our colleague on the
committee, Mr. LaHood, who has been an outstanding member of this
committee but has been an outstanding Member of the House of
Representatives, someone you could always count on to speak his mind
but to be fair and to do his best for his constituents and for this
Nation.
I also want to say thank you to the many staffers who have worked
hour after hour on this bill to make today possible. As a former staff
member, I know that these efforts don't come together by some alchemy,
but it is because of the incredible hard work that people put into it
over many, many hours.
And let me thank Martha Foley, subcommittee Clerk; as well as Leslie
Barrack; Diem-Lihn Jones; Adrienne Simmonson; Kelly Wade; Brian
Ronholm, my staff. Also, Ashley Turton, my Chief of Staff; and Leticia
Mederos, Legislative Director. I also want to say thank you to Martin
Delgado, Dave Gibbons, and Jamie Swafford on the minority staff. I
thank everyone for their time and their patience in putting this effort
together.
I believe nothing could be more important for us to move forward on
this bill and get it passed. I think it is in the best interest of this
Nation.
[[Page H9236]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.048
[[Page H9237]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.049
[[Page H9238]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.050
[[Page H9239]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.051
[[Page H9240]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.052
[[Page H9241]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.053
[[Page H9242]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.054
[[Page H9243]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.055
[[Page H9244]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.056
[[Page H9245]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.057
[[Page H9246]]
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to thank Chairman Peterson
Chairman Baca, and members of the House Agriculture Committee for their
continued commitment and interest in supporting our agriculture
industry, producers--and specifically supporting modernization of the
food stamp program, increasing access to fresh produce, particularly
for low-income neighborhoods and working with the Congressional Black
Caucus and urban Members to accommodate the needs of diverse
communities.
Throughout our Nation, we have a host of communities that are
disconnected from accessing fresh fruits and vegetables. An increasing
number of families are facing hunger and food insecurity: according to
USDA's most recent data, more than 35 million Americans are unable to
purchase food on a regular basis. Both sets of problems stem in part
from the same cause: in urban as well as rural areas, too many low-
income families live in ``food deserts'' where access to fresh, healthy
foods is lacking.
I have worked with my fellow urban Members on a package of urban
needs--ranging from making mandatory funds for the Community Food
Project grant, increasing access to fresh fruits and produce, defining
the term food desert, and creating a new Urban Health Enterprise grant
program to strengthen links between producers to actual providers in
urban communities.
All but one of these amendments are included in the Manager's
Amendment, and I thank the Chairman for working with us to ensure urban
members have a stake in the farm bill.
Mr. Chairman, although we still must find funding for the Community
Food Projects grant; overall, the 2007 Farm Bill contains significant
gains to promote access, expansion and education on nutrition.
As you may know, with regard to nutrition, the bill modernizes the
food stamp program by: 1. Requiring all states go to an electronic
system; 2. Increasing the minimum food benefit of participants; 3.
Indexing asset limits and excludes retirement and education accounts,
and combat pay.
The nutrition title extends and funds the Emergency Food Assistance
Program to provide needed commodities to food banks and homeless
shelters.
And it expands the authority of the Senior Farmer's Market Nutrition
Program and creates a demonstration project to evaluate strategies to
address obesity among low-income communities.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, for far too many urban dwellers, the
choice comes down to traveling long distances to buy groceries or
shopping at expensive corner stores that often sell high-fat, high-
sugar convenience food and little or no fresh produce. The consequences
are byproducts of poverty: diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.
In the interests of public health, cost-efficiency, and social
justice, we should consider policies to increase the availability of
and access to fresh fruits and vegetables in underserved neighborhoods
and communities.
I call on my colleagues to support the Farm Bill, because of the
gains in nutrition the committee has included in this bill.
In addition to supporting farmers and our agriculture industry; this
bill increases healthy food options in our poorest communities, creates
incentives for producers and retailers to provide foods that provide
healthy food options, and increasing consumer education about healthy
alternatives at school and home.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the Agriculture Sub-
committee Chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro, and the ranking Republican, Mr.
Kingston. They have done a commendable job in putting this measure
together in this first year in their respective positions.
All along the way, Ms. DeLauro reached across the aisle to sound out
the concern of the members on this side of the aisle--and the work
product shows her bi-partisan efforts.
While I do not agree with everything in the bill, I think it is a
good product, all things considered. I especially want to thank the
Chairwoman for her efforts to increase funding in the bill for the
cooperative State research, education and extension service. The CSREES
funding level was below the level where it should have been coming out
of the subcommittee.
After hearing the concerns of many members, Ms. DeLauro and Mr.
Kingston closed ranks and fixed the problem. That funding gap was a
particular issue to many members, especially those from rural, farming
areas.
I am pleased to note that the bill contains much in the way of
agriculture research funding in a number of areas. This is important to
many areas, particularly renewable fuels and food production science,
to name two areas. The more we can make substantive progress in both of
these areas, the better for the consumer and the farm community.
I do want to point out a couple of areas where I think we can and
should improve on the bill. First, there is a provision, section 746,
which currently reads, ``no funds in this act may be used to authorize
qualified health claims for conventional foods''.
I understand that there will be an amendment later on that stipulates
no funds for FDA will be used for this purpose. However, this amendment
does not address the problem.
If this provision, or a similar one, is intended to help FDA avoid
wasted time and resources on frivolous petitions, it misses the mark.
Nothing in the language removes FDA's responsibility to review these
petitions, as required by law. The provision only denies final
approval, or ``authorization'' of the use of valid claims.
This is bad health policy, and it is bad fiscal policy, and I urge
the chairwoman to relook at the provision in conference, lest its
impact come back to haunt us.
On another issue, the horse slaughter language, the provision, as
written, is opposed by animal experts across the country--real experts,
including veterinarians and others. The way the language is written, it
precludes health inspections and certifications for the legal transport
of horses, for example.
Finally, I think, like some others on both sides of the aisle, that
we have short-changed some necessary program areas, on occasion, in the
past.
But I also think that, as with some other bills, we are going a
little far in adding extra spending. Too much spending can do as much
damage as too little spending.
It is important to remember that when we give agencies too much
money, they spend more than they need to spend simply to hold their
annual baseline intact. this is not a heal thy way to manage the
Nation's resources.
We have some discretion here, and we should use that discretion
since, apparently, we have turned a blind eye to the serious and
growing problem of out-of-control entitlements.
In summary, let me, again, commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
I think you have done a fine job, and I look forward to continuing to
work with you to improve this bill as we go forward.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise in
strong support of the H.R. 3161, the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2008.
As a member of this Subcommittee, I am extremely proud of the work of
the Subcommittee and our members on both sides of the aisle, in
crafting a bill which truly impacts and touches the lives of everyone
who lives in this great Nation of ours, as well as millions of
individuals around the world.
Our bill invests in Rural America, providing funding to accommodate
some $5.1 billion in affordable loans for low income families in rural
areas, which will support approximately 38,000 single family
homeownership opportunities.
We invest in rural communities, by expanding resources devoted to
economic development programs and access to broadband telecommunication
services to bridge the digital divide in rural, underserved areas.
We address the health care and emergency needs of rural areas, as
well as providing support for the rebuilding of our Nation's rural
infrastructure.
We invest in the protection of the Nation's Public Health, by
providing nearly $930 million for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service as well as $1.7 billion for the Food and Drug Administration--
including increases to begin a transformation of food safety
regulation, improving drug safety, monitor prescription drug
advertisements and expanding the review of new generic drug
applications.
To fight hunger in America, our bill makes investments which will
expand nutrition, providing $958 million for nutrition programs,
including the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, Fresh
Fruit and Vegetable program and the Simplified Summer Food program.
We provide $5.6 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is expected to
benefit over 8.4 million Americans over the next year.
Not only does this bill provide the resources necessary to keep
nearly 26 million of the nation's poorest from going hungry, we also
expand Emergency Food Assistance Program, so that food banks, soup
kitchens, and other emergency feeding sites have needed resources. The
bill also expands the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program to all 50
states.
We invest in the transformation of our Energy Future, providing $1.2
billion for renewable energy, which was $955.3 million above 2007 and
$810.4 million above the President's request--and includes funding for
bio-energy and renewable energy research and development, including
loans and grants in rural areas. The resources provided will be key
building blocks in the expansion of renewable fuel production needed to
encourage American energy independence and protect our environment.
[[Page H9247]]
We invest in Conservation, providing over $979 million for
conservation efforts and community development. This bill restores many
of the programs slated for major reductions in the president's request,
including the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, Resource
Conservation and Development, and the watershed programs which are
funded $75 million--more than double last year's levels.
This investment will continue our efforts to improve both funding and
access to conservation programs that take environmentally sensitive
land out of farming and encourage environmentally friendly practices on
working farmland.
Finally, I would like to congratulate my Chairwoman, Rosa DeLauro,
for the outstanding job she's done in stewarding and leading the
important work of our Subcommitee.
And I would be remiss if I did not recognize and thank the staff of
Subcommittee--Martha Foley, Leslie Barrack, Adrienne Simonson, Diem-
Linh Joan and Kelly Wade of the Majority staff; and Martin Delgado,
Jamie Swafford and Dave Gibbons on the Minority staff, and of course,
Michael Reed, and Niki Newberry of my staff.
This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the FY08
Agriculture Appropriations bill.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with House earmark reforms,
I would like to place into the record a listing of Congressionally-
directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within
the report to the FY08 Agriculture, Rural Development and FDA
Appropriations bill.
I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these
projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers.
First, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES) grants included below are targeted to our nation's
Land Grant Colleges. In the case of Idaho, these funds are used by the
University of Idaho to conduct research on a variety of crops important
to the Pacific Northwest. I have also supported research in Washington
and Oregon because their research is invaluable to my constituents as
well.
In assessing the value of these requests, there are some important
considerations that must be made. World labor standards and costs are
far below those of the U.S. Our nation's farmers are subjected to far
more stringent environmental regulations than those of many of our
competitors. Input costs in the U.S. far surpass those of other
nations. And energy prices, including farm diesel, are rising
dramatically.
So how can a U.S. farmer remain competitive in a global market? He
can do it by achieving greater productivity and efficiency, increased
yields, and better defenses against diseases. These are the very things
that agriculture research funding delivers for U.S. producers--and for
U.S. consumers.
If you want to rely on foreign nations for our food in the way we
rely on them for our oil, then by all means eliminate these important
agriculture research programs. But if you believe, as I do, that
maintaining a domestic capability to produce our food is a national
security issue, then you ought to support these research programs and
fight for their continuation.
The second entity that receives the bulk of these funds is the
Agriculture Research Service (ARS) and its stations across rural
America. In Idaho, these institutions are conducting vital research
into some of our most important crops--sugar, potatoes, small fruits,
and aquaculture. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit an ARS
station to see firsthand the value of this research. If you do, you
will learn that these researchers are doing amazing things with very
limited budgets. These projects are usually small in terms of their
funding, but the benefits that flow from that research cannot be
measured in dollars alone.
Four of the projects below are funded through the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The first program, Potato Cyst
Nematode (PCN) Detection and Eradication, provides funding that is
critical to saving the potato industry, both in Idaho and across the
nation. In August 2006, PCN was discovered in our country for the first
time on approximately 1,000 acres in Eastern Idaho. PCN is a major pest
of potato crops and is one of the most destructive and difficult pests
to control. If left uncontrolled, this pest can result in devastating
crop yield losses of up to 80 percent. Without this funding, the pest's
significant risk of dispersion could lead to a devastating impact on
our nation's agriculture production and exports.
The Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis funding is particularly critical
to my home state of Idaho. Idaho recently regained its Brucellosis
Class Free Status and these funds are critical to continuing a
management plan that will allow Idaho to maintain brucellosis free
status.
The Tri-State Predator control funding is hardly a handout to
ranchers. The federal government forced wolf reintroduction on Idaho
and other western states and it is duty-bound to pay for the deadly and
gruesome impacts of this decision.
The funding for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center will enable the
Center to utilize organism-rearing technology to improve mass rearing
capabilities for biological control organisms, thus providing long-term
management of invasive weeds.
Another project on this list is the Idaho One-Plan. The Idaho One-
Plan is a unique collaboration of agencies, industries, and
associations dedicated to assisting Idaho farmers and ranchers in their
continuing natural resource stewardship responsibilities. The program
was developed jointly with state and federal resource agencies, the
University of Idaho Cooperative Extension program, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and local commodity groups. It's a successful
program that has enormous value to not only the Idaho agriculture
community and the environment, but to other states that might be
interested in a similar collaborative process.
The final project is the Idaho Food Bank Facility Acquisition and
Expansion Program. Currently, the Idaho Food Bank, located in
Pocatello, Idaho, cannot process all of the donated food and often
turns away delivery trucks and donations due to lack of space. An
expansion of the food bank would allow more needy families in Eastern
Idaho to utilize the food bank's services.
Mr. Chairman, any effort to remove these projects from the bill would
not only result in zero savings to taxpayers, it would stop dead these
important efforts to enhance and protect our nation's food supply.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally-
directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for
them.
(1) $6,750,000 for APHIS Potato Cyst Nematode Detection and
Eradication.
(2) $854,000 for CSREES Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural
Commodities (WA, OR, ID).
(3) $96,994 for ARS National Plant Germplasm Program--Aberdeen, ID.
(4) $628,843 for ARS Aquaculture--Barley Sustainable Feeds--Aberdeen,
ID.
(5) $1,093,728 for ARS Aquaculture Rainbow Trout Research--Aberdeen,
ID.
(6) $99,000 for ARS Aquaculture Sustainable Feeds--Aberdeen, ID.
(7) $756,000 for CSREES Aquaculture (WA, ID).
(8) $728,000 for CSREES Barley for Rural Development (MT, ID).
(9) $900,000 for APHIS Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis
Committee.
(10) $198,000 for NRCS Idaho One-Plan
(11) $250,000 for APHIS Nez Perce Bio-Control Center.
(12) $1,300,000 for APHIS Tri-State Predator Control in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming.
(13) $558,000 for CSREES Cool Season Legume Research (ID, WA, ND).
(14) $446,000 for CSREES Grass Seed Cropping for Sustainable
Agriculture Research (WA, OR, ID).
(15) 439,000 for CSREES Small Fruit Research (OR, WA, ID).
(16) $702,592 for ARS Sugarbeet Research--Kimberly, ID.
(17) $634,000 for CSREES STEEP III Water Quality in the Northwest.
(18) $6,371,000 for CSREES Wood Utilization (OR, MS, NC, MN, ME, MI,
ID, TN, AK, WV).
(19) $1,482,000 for CSREES Potato Research.
(20) Idaho Food Bank Facility Acquisition and Expansion Program.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairwoman DeLauro for her
excellent work on this bill and to address a specific issue that is of
growing importance to my constituents.
This March, the light brown apple moth (LBAM), an exotic pest native
to Australia, was discovered in California. The moth has been damaging
to growers in Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties in my
district. In Santa Cruz County, nearly 6,000 moths have now been
detected.
This pest can affect a wide variety of plants, flowers, fruits and
vegetables, and virtually any crop with a leaf is a potential host.
In order to halt the spread of this pest, USDA has imposed a
quarantine in California counties where the moth has been found.
Growers in these counties must subject their operations to a visual
inspection to demonstrate that their facilities are not infested before
they can be cleared to ship produce. For growers within 1.5 miles of a
confirmed discovery of the moth, each shipment must be cleared by an
inspection.
Canada and Mexico have also placed restrictions on the import of
California products.
The quarantine and restrictions are a burden on growers in my
district as well as on State and county agriculture officials, but it
is a burden they recognize is necessary to prevent the further spread
of the light brown apple moth.
[[Page H9248]]
What is critical is adequate Federal support and funding for the
eradication and inspection effort. The USDA provided $5 million for
this effort at the outset and they are seeking an additional $12.5
million through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The request has
been pending with OMB for several weeks now and it needs to be
approved.
Even if the funding is released, it may only carry operations through
the end of the year. In the coming years, it may take several million
dollars more to ensure the job is complete.
This was a relatively late breaking issue to be addressed in this
appropriations bill, and I commend Chairwoman DeLauro for recognizing
how serious it is and for including report language that calls on the
USDA to secure all funds needed from the Commodity Credit Corporation
to eradicate the light brown apple moth. In the Senate, $1 million is
included within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
specifically for this purpose.
As we move forward with this bill and subsequent legislation to deal
with agriculture disasters, I look forward to working with the
Chairwoman and my colleague, Mr. Farr, to build on what is already in
the House and Senate bills in order to ensure that sufficient funding
is provided and that it is made available in a timely fashion.
Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair 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. Those amendments will
be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3161
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2008, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Agriculture, $5,505,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000
of this amount shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses, not otherwise provided for, as
determined by the Secretary.
{time} 1600
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I start a period of time in which we're
going to take opportunity to talk about SCHIP.
I strike the last word to speak about the expansion legislation that
was pulled from the Energy and Commerce Committee. Reportedly, it will
be on the floor later this week, and I would like to highlight the
damage it will do, if enacted. Specifically, I'd like to take this
opportunity to speak about the very popular Medicare Advantage program.
In Illinois, there are 1,715,548 Medicare beneficiaries. Of these,
145,600, or 8 percent, have selected to receive their health care
coverage through a Medicare Advantage plan. According to the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, there are over 6,000 Medicare
beneficiaries in my district that are currently enrolled in a Medicare
Advantage program.
One of the most troubling things I have heard about the Democrats'
bill is actually from Peter Orzag, who is the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office. The Director said that under the
Democrats' bill, Medicare Advantage enrollment would fall by
approximately 8.2 million currently to 5.5 million in 2012, a reduction
of 33 percent from current enrollment levels.
Medicare beneficiaries are among this Nation's most vulnerable
citizens, and access to comprehensive high-quality affordable health
care is imperative to their well-being. As we well know, the population
of the United States over age 65 is growing rapidly. The average
Medicare beneficiary is likely to have two or more chronic illnesses.
Medicare beneficiaries should have choices for their health care
coverage similar to those available to individuals under age 65. We
should allow them to choose plans that best meet their unique health
care needs and to help them coordinate their care, manage their
illnesses, and reduce their out-of-pocket costs.
On average, beneficiaries that choose a Medicare Advantage plan in
Illinois are receiving over $60 in extra value each month from their
plans. This extra value comes in the form of savings on cost sharing
and out-of-pocket protections and on lower part D premiums, or
additional benefits like coverage for vision and hearing. Beneficiaries
in Medicare Advantage plans report better access to care, more usual
sources of care, and more likelihood of seeking care when needed than
beneficiaries in traditional fee-for-service operations.
CMS has recently reported that beneficiaries in fee-for-service with
no additional sources of coverage have more difficulty getting care and
are less likely to have usual source of care than Medicare Advantage
enrollees.
All Medicare beneficiaries have access to a Medicare Advantage plan
that does not require cost sharing for screenings for breast cancer,
cervical cancer and prostate cancer. Recently, CMS has reported that
Medicare Advantage enrollees are more likely to receive preventative
services, such as immunizations, mammography, and screenings for
colorectal and prostate cancers.
Critics have implied that the Medicare Advantage program is
contributing to the solvency problems facing the Medicare trust fund.
However, these critics fail to recognize the extra value that Medicare
Advantage plans provide that address the real drivers in increasing
program costs. Medicare Advantage plans help control the volume and
intensity of services used by beneficiaries in Medicare part A and part
D by coordinating care, improving health outcomes, and monitoring
enrollee usage.
Medicare Advantage generates savings in the part D program by helping
to drive down the average premium paid by the government and
beneficiaries, and by reducing Federal expenditures for beneficiaries
eligible for low-income subsidies.
Critics have further distorted the facts by offering information that
claims to suggest a ``fairness gap'' between Medicare Advantage
payments and the other providers. In fact, Medicare Advantage payment
rates increase in direct proportion to the Federal Government's
estimates of increases in per capita costs in the fee-for-service
program.
Some critics suggest that legislators must choose between providing
comprehensive health coverage options to Illinois seniors through the
Medicare Advantage program or providing coverage to Illinois uninsured
children through SCHIP. Both programs play a crucial role in serving
vulnerable populations. We should focus on devoting adequate resources
to both SCHIP and Medicare Advantage, while working to maintain and
strengthen all components of our Nation's health care safety net.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gingrey
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Gingrey:
Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $50,050)''.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the necessary
expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture by $50,050, a
simple 1 percent; a 1 percent reduction in the expenses of the Office
of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not aimed necessarily at the Office of
the Secretary of Agriculture, but it aims to make a simple 1 percent
reduction in order to shrink the Federal deficit. Why is that
necessary? Well, we should be paying for increased spending by reducing
other Federal spending, that's the 1 percent I'm calling for, rather
than raising taxes or putting the burden on our Medicare seniors, as we
do
[[Page H9249]]
in this proposed SCHIP reauthorization and expansion, Mr. Chairman.
And as we all know, the Democratic majority, the Energy and Commerce
Committee bill, which will be combined with the bill out of the Ways
and Means Committee we will be dealing with in the next day or two on
this floor, calls for a $50 billion increase over the next 5 years.
Now, that's on top of the base program which, in the aggregate, was a
$25 billion program over the last 5 years. We're not going to increase
that by 10 percent, by 20 percent, by 50 percent, or even by 100
percent. We're increasing it even more than that, going from $25
billion, Mr. Chairman, to $75 billion.
So, that's why I'm standing before the body today and saying, look,
this is a small cut; this is a little bit of money. But a little bit of
money here and a little bit of money there, I've got lots of amendments
where we ought to cut other programs here 1 percent to try to pay for
some of these things that we are doing that violate your own rules,
your own PAYGO rules.
Mr. Chairman, I will say this; this new SCHIP program, everything's
got to have an acronym, doesn't it? And it sells well if it has a
catchy little acronym. And the Democratic majority is calling this one,
the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee came up with a nice,
little cutesy acronym for this mass expansion called the CHAMP Act,
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.
Mr. Chairman, I've got an acronym for this bill which fits it a lot
better, and that acronym is the ``CHUMP Act.'' That's what it is, the
CHUMP Act, the Children's Health Unfunding Medicare Protection Act.
Because, Mr. Chairman, what this bill calls for is to totally wreck,
totally destroy Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is that part of
the Medicare program where some 8 million out of 41, 42 million seniors
have chosen that health care delivery model because they know they get
an opportunity for preventative health care, they get an opportunity to
have a nurse practitioner, a physician assistant, or maybe even the
doctor him- or herself looking at their health care needs and not just
providing, as in traditional Medicare, episodic care where there is no
coordination. And a lot of times patients, particularly our seniors
with multiple systems diseases, will come home from one doctor with a
handful of prescriptions and the next week they're going to another
doctor with a handful of prescriptions.
The Medicare Advantage program was designed to help prevent that, to
put an emphasis on coordination, on connecting the dots so that we
wouldn't duplicate services, or in some instances, Mr. Chairman, even
provide a level of care or prescription that could be detrimental to
the patient, that could be counterproductive.
So, this is why I feel that my amendment, this small amendment to cut
by 1 percent the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, is a move in
the right direction to say, look, don't do this massive expansion of
the SCHIP program; reauthorize it. We all want to reauthorize it. In
fact, I think maybe what the President called for in his budget was a
little bit on the low side. Maybe increasing it $1 billion a year is
not quite enough, if indeed, Mr. Chairman, there are 6 million
youngsters who are needy and do not have health insurance in this
country.
So, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I think my colleague from Georgia maybe doesn't
understand what bill is on the floor today. This is the Agriculture
appropriations bill. There will be an opportunity to discuss SCHIP, and
you can continue to do that, but let me just comment about your
Agriculture appropriations amendment.
The House bill includes funding for central administration offices to
fund current staff. The only increase is for pay costs. And I might
just tell you that for all of the staff offices in central
administration, that the work that was done by the committee literally
cut these offices by about 16 percent. So it was just pay and benefits.
However, you should know I feel the obligation to mention these
things to you, that any cuts in these offices will result in the
reduction of headquarters staff, not the field staff, because that's
the personnel that deals directly on a one-to-one basis with our
farmers and with our ranchers so that they can access the system and be
able to do what they need to do.
Now, I'm going to give the gentleman an opportunity to withdraw his
amendment, because I am prepared to accept your amendment, and I'm
happy to accept your amendment.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the Chair seeks to accept the amendment, then that
ends the debate; correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will put the question on the amendment at the
conclusion of the debate on the amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. The debate is over then; correct?
Ms. DeLAURO. We have accepted the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy that the Chair is accepting
this amendment, but I would like to speak on it as an opportunity to
speak about cutting government spending.
Though it's just $50,500, that's far more than the median income in
my district. I want the American taxpayers to know that this is an
important step, and it's good that they're accepting a limitation on
the rapid increase in spending within this legislation.
There are a lot of good points that we have to consider here. We have
to consider the totality of government spending when we're debating
here on the House floor. The government spending for this fiscal year
is over $2.7 trillion. To put that into perspective, Mr. Chairman, that
is larger than all the economies of the world, except for two. It is
far larger than even the Chinese economy, which is about $1.9 trillion.
The reason why I bring this up is that when we're discussing each of
these appropriations bills, we tend to focus on small parts of the
appropriations process. We tend to focus on an amendment here, an
amendment there, maybe increasing funding here and there and increasing
funding in a particular appropriations bill. But we have to talk about
what's that doing to the whole of the budget. And if we spend money
here in the Department of Agriculture, we may not have that money to
fund this SCHIP proposal that the Democrats are bringing to the floor
at the end of this week.
Now, to talk about that bill, what they're going to do is not simply
cut government spending elsewhere in the budget, elsewhere in the
government, reforming programs, eliminating programs that are
ineffective and no longer cost-effective for the American taxpayers,
but what they do is they go out and find new revenue and raise taxes
under this SCHIP proposal.
The Agriculture bill we have here today increases government
spending, thereby forcing this new Democrat majority to go out and
raise taxes for their new programs. And, Mr. Chairman, they've proposed
a lot of new programs, this new Democrat majority, and what we have to
do is focus on making sure we balance the budget. Now, balancing the
budget, to me, as a fiscal conservative, does not mean going out and
getting new revenue.
{time} 1615
It means doing things, sensible things, such as the Congressman from
Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, my good friend and colleague, is doing here. It
cuts 1 percent out of the administrative budget of the Department of
Agriculture, just 1 percent.
I have an amendment that I would like to perfect. If 1 percent was
acceptable to the Chair, I would like to see if maybe 2 percent would
be acceptable and see where we can actually draw the line in cutting
government spending, where the breaking point is in this House of
Representatives. To that end, I think it is important that we have a
discussion on what that proper number is.
[[Page H9250]]
I know my colleague from Georgia may have another amendment similar
to this next up, I hope, at which point I would like to see if we can
actually go a little bit further in cutting government spending. Let's
talk about not just the Agriculture appropriations bill, which is the
key focus of today, but also the long-term consequences of our just
having a narrow, myopic focus on the current bill on the floor. Let's
talk about the totality of government spending, ways that we can reform
the government, limit the government, and actually get back to what is
sensible.
We have a big debate going on right now about the war in Iraq. We
have a big debate going on about children's health care. We have a big
debate about whether or not the farm bill that we passed last week was
the right thing to do and whether or not you should actually have a
massive tax increase in order to implement the new programs within that
formula. Many of us agree that that wasn't the right thing to do, but,
unfortunately, the majority in the House did vote for that massive tax
increase.
It is important that we have a discussion on health care and
agriculture and the long-term consequences of these issues going
forward. Certainly, the bill today and the chairman's willingness to
accept a 1 percent cut in the administrative budget is a step in the
right direction. We can be thankful for that.
I hope, as we go on in the debate, the Chair will be willing to
accept other amendments that limit the rapid increase of funds going to
the Department of Agriculture and we can actually rightsize the
government. There are many on this side of the aisle who want to cut
the size and scope of government. I know that the chairwoman has been
willing to examine programs and reform those programs. I hope that she
will be willing to accept many of the amendments we have here today.
I also know my colleague from Georgia has a number of amendments like
this. It is important that we discuss the long-term consequences of our
failure to limit the growth of government.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for Members on both
sides of the aisle to understand what is going to transpire here. This
is a filibuster masquerading as an amendment. This amendment cuts
$50,000, a tiny, tiny symbolic sum, from the administrative account in
question. But, as I see it, this is not a real amendment.
What it means is that it simply affords those who offer it, under the
guise of talking about spending, to really engage in delay and delay
and delay. Because their goal, if they can, is to not have the House
finish its appropriations business. Their goal, also, if they can, is
to delay the SCHIP bill from coming to the floor and finally being
passed by the House.
So after we have seen this administration and their allies in this
House borrow $1.2 trillion to pay for tax cuts and after we have seen
them borrow another $600 billion to finance that misbegotten war in
Iraq, now they pretend that they are contributing to the public good by
offering to cut spending by $50,000; not $50 billion, but $50,000.
This is, in plain language, a filibuster. It is the first of many
amendments that are being offered by people who are so opposed to the
SCHIP proposition, which will be before us tomorrow, that they would
prefer to defend $50 billion in tax cuts for people making $1 million a
year than they would to see 5 million more kids covered by health
insurance in this country. That is really what is afoot here.
Mr. Chairman, I find myself only mildly amused, because the subject
really is serious. I find myself only mildly amused by the fact that, 3
days ago, we had the President announce another large, massive increase
in foreign aid which he wants us to provide yet this year.
We also now increasingly are coming to understand that the President
will be asking for an extension of the surge in Iraq, which will
require him to ask the Congress to spend an extra $25 billion to $30
billion above and beyond $140 billion he is planning to ask for in the
supplemental already for this year for Iraq. So, yet, we are here mired
today in this let's-pretend Potemkin debate over $50,000.
We don't, on this side of the aisle, intend to get bogged down; at
least, we don't intend to contribute to the bogging down. So we will
let them drone on, drone on and drone on with their Lilliputian
amendments.
Meanwhile, we recognize what is happening: If the other side wants to
delay the people's business for a while, all that means is that, in the
end, our colleagues won't be going home on Friday, they won't be going
home on Saturday, and we will still be having Sunday dinner together.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the chairman, and I thank the gentleman from
Georgia for his legislation to make a 1 percent reduction. We have got
to start taking these first steps.
Year after year, I feel there is a group of us that come down here
talking about how we slow the growth of government, talking about how
we make reductions in what the government spends and talking about the
necessity to begin with those little, tiny savings, \1/4\ percent, \1/
2\ percent, a solid percent, that will yield a savings. We are talking
about $5.5 million. I find it just amazing that we can't even find
$50,000 in there. We can't agree to make that kind of reduction. There
are ways to do this. That is something government should be doing.
The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned the SCHIP program. Indeed, in
our Committee on Energy and Commerce, we have been quite disheartened
that the SCHIP bill that he mentioned is not going through regular
order. We didn't have a committee hearing in our Health Subcommittee.
We would have welcomed that.
There is nobody against health care for low-income children. What we
have great concerns about is all the other stuff, all the pay-fors that
are in this bill, all the expansion of policy, taking a block grant,
moving it to an entitlement. It brings us back to the initial question
with the gentleman's bill on this appropriations bill of making a 1
percent reduction. There has to be a way to yield a savings that will
pay for some of these things, because we can't take it out of Medicare
Advantage.
The SCHIP legislation that the gentleman mentioned would make an
incredible reduction to Medicare Advantage. My goodness, we would see
$193 billion in reductions to our Medicare Advantage program over a 10-
year period of time, which would be $15.3 billion in cuts to Medicare
Part A for seniors. This would include skilled nursing facilities,
rehab facilities, and long-term care hospitals. That would be one of
the pay-fors in the SCHIP bill that the gentleman referenced.
That is why the gentleman from Georgia has a great amendment that
says, let's get going. In title 1, page 1 of this bill, let's start
finding a way to make some reductions. $9.6 billion in cuts to Medicare
Part D for seniors is in that bill, that SCHIP bill that didn't go
through subcommittee, didn't get a complete markup in committee. It is
going to be moved to the floor.
So, there, again, the gentleman from Wisconsin's points on this bill
is the reason we have this amendment to title 1, section 1 of this
bill, to make that reduction in the Secretary's spending, $5.5 million.
Certainly, we can find $50,000. $3.6 billion would be cut out of end-
stage renal disease in that bill. There has to be a way to start making
reductions so that you're paying for the government that you are trying
to spend, the money you are trying to spend, the government you are
putting out there. There has got to be a way to pay for this.
Unfortunately, that is not something that we are seeing considered.
Mr. Chairman, $50,000 may not be much to the Secretary, but it is a
lot to my constituents in Tennessee and especially those that are on
Medicare Advantage.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear. The
gentlewoman may not be aware of it, but we
[[Page H9251]]
have accepted this amendment. The majority has accepted Mr. Gingrey's
first amendment for $50,000. The gentlewoman said that $50,000 is very
important to her constituents. The majority has heard it. Therefore, we
accept the amendment. I think we can dispose of this amendment and move
forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro), the chairwoman of the subcommittee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would just say we have accepted the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, clearly, as the Chair of the committee pointed out,
this is a filibuster to talk about another issue. Now, you can continue
to do that. The sooner you stop filibustering, the sooner we can move
on. We have accepted the amendment. But that is up to you.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.
The gentlewoman's constituents should be very proud that we have
accepted the amendment. The $50,000 that is so important to her
constituents, to all Americans, has been accepted. We can dispose of
this and move forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for
accepting the amendment. It is a commonsense way to begin this process
that lacks a lot of common sense.
I wish to commend my colleague from Georgia for beginning the process
of fiscal responsibility on this next appropriations bill. I would
point out, however, that this bill spends $1.04 billion more than last
year, an increase of 5.9 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that there aren't many folks across
this Nation who got a 5.9 percent increase in their budget this year.
So, I think that the amendment of my colleague from Georgia is an
appropriate effort to try to begin the process of fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I stand here supporting this amendment because as we
attempt, and thank goodness we have the support of the majority on this
small attempt, to begin to decrease bureaucracy, we are faced with a
significant and huge increase in bureaucracy coming later this week.
I say that because my friend, the chairman of the committee, says,
well, our goal here is to not finish the business. No, Mr. Chairman,
our goal is to bring focus to an issue and to a bill that will not be
allowed to get the focus that this bill gets. Because, as you know, Mr.
Chairman, the rules of the House that will bring bills to the floor
later this week will be of such a nature that Members of the House
won't be able to come to the floor and talk about it. They won't be
able to come to the floor and offer amendments in an open and
deliberative process. They won't be able to exercise the right that
they felt, and certainly their constituents felt, they would be given
by being elected to this august body.