Motion to Go to Conference on H.R. 2744, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006

MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 2744, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - October 19, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this motion to instruct. This motion will instruct House conferees for the fiscal year 2006 agricultural appropriations bill to insist that none of the funds made available by this or any other act be used to close or relocate a county or local Farm Service Agency office until the Secretary of Agriculture has determined the cost effectiveness of such closures.

It would also set a limit on the funds available for States to contract out work being carried out under the Food Stamp Act of 1977.

I want to first say that it has been a pleasure working with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and his talented staff to put together the fiscal year 2006 agricultural appropriations bill, doing the best we could with very limited resources.

Under the circumstances, it is a bill that I was proud of, my first as ranking minority member of this subcommittee. I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues to offer a motion that would in essence codify the decision announced yesterday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to shelve its so-called FSA Tomorrow Plan, a plan that would have closed 713 of the Farm Service Agency's 2,351 offices across America, including two in my State of Connecticut. Had the plan gone into effect, more than a quarter of FSA's total field offices would have closed at a time when rural America is battling drought, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and skyrocketing energy costs, all leading to what has been a steady deterioration of its economic base.

For those unfamiliar with FSA, the Farm Service Agency administers 45 different programs designed to meet the demands of our increasingly diverse agricultural landscape. It provides critical services to America's farmer, services such as assistance to specialty crop producers, disbursal of payments for programs such as the tobacco and peanut buyout, and the handling of disaster assistance payments.

But perhaps more importantly, FSA offices provide that critical link between the farmer and the Federal Government. In that respect, FSA still retains its roots in FDR's New Deal which established that the Federal Government had an appropriate role to play in ensuring a healthy rural economy, a critical component to managing the national economy.

Over the years, the agency that became the FSA managed programs such as the standard Rural Rehabilitation Loan Program, which provided credit, farm, home management planning and technical supervision to farms. It helped farmers and their debtors arbitrate agreements and head off foreclosure. Indeed, FSA's focus has changed as the need has.

After Pearl Harbor the War Food Administration was organized to meet the increased needs of a country at war. And in 1994 USDA reorganized what is now the Farm Service Agency, which included the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, the Risk Management Agency, and the Farm Credit portion of the Farmers Home Administration.

In recent years, FSA has become part of USDA's one-stop concept, a clearinghouse for the delivery for farm programs, where farmers can go for programs that help them stabilize farm income, conserve land and water resources, provide credit to new or disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and help farm operations recover from the effects of disaster.

In recent months, however, USDA was planning what was called FSA Tomorrow, which ostensibly was designed to provide better staff, better equipped and trained offices to improve flexibility and efficiency and to modernize technology. These were all laudable goals, despite real challenges posed by that digital divide and lack of Internet access in rural America.

But central to FSA Tomorrow was its proposal to close over 700 FSA offices. The effect would have been clear and immediate, making it more difficult for producers to participate in USDA programs. Closing these offices would have fragmented the one-stop concept, forcing many farmers to drive hundreds of miles to the nearest FSA office where some of the closings are occurring in areas with an already high concentration of underserved minority and small-operation farms.

This was all happening at a time when FSA services were as critical as ever in modern memory. Even before Katrina there was extensive work going on for hurricane and flood relief for the Southeast and mid-South, as well as work around drought problem in the Midwest; and we know the havoc Katrina wrecked on the gulf coast.

What was most worrisome about the FSA Tomorrow Plan was its formulation by USDA without any cost analysis to show why it was necessary, nor was there any input from Congress. Thankfully, in the wake of Senate action, USDA announced yesterday that it would set aside FSA Tomorrow and its timetable for implementation.

As such, we offer this motion today to codify that decision, protecting Congress' jurisdiction in the formulation of policy so vital to American farmers' interest. We all support improving FSA efficiency, streamlining the program so that our farmers can get the best services possible. But I think yesterday's decision confirmed that ensuring FSA field offices remain open and within reach of our farmers is a critical piece of making that happen.

Mr. Speaker, the second component of this motion would instruct conferees to limit the availability of food stamp funds that can be contracted out by States. Specifically, such language would prohibit a State agency from using Federal funds if they privatize a certain percentage of their food stamp program operations.

What this is about is ensuring the integrity of the Food Stamp Program, which, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most effective, well-run Federal programs that we have. If you have any doubt about that, I point you to the program's remarkable response to Hurricane Katrina.

Today, in Louisiana nearly 300,000 households are already receiving food stamps. In Texas there are another 125,000 households receiving emergency food stamp assistance. Altogether, nearly a million citizens affected or displaced by Hurricane Katrina, children, seniors, are receiving emergency food stamp benefits, 25 million Americans in all, reminding us once again that good and decent societies take care of their most vulnerable.

But as we speak, at least one State is planning on delegating an unprecedented billion dollar privatization contract. Texas is hoping to delegate certification and enrollment of recipients for food stamps to a private firm, Accenture, LLP. Its plan is disturbing, to say the least, as its Health and Human Services Department would lay off at least 1,200 stamp workers, closing more than a third of State-run eligibility offices around the State, 99 in all. Texas is planning to replace staff at low hourly rates.

The responsibility for screening applicants, filling out web-based forms and driving clients to the remaining offices for certification, that would fall to community organizations. Much like with farmers in the proposed FSA office closing, clients, including their children, seniors and many who do not speak English, would be forced to travel long distances for these services.

There are a host of problems with the Texas plan. For one, it appears illegal, conflicting with Federal statutes governing the Food Stamp Program, which requires States to seek a waiver from the USDA.

In a letter to the ranking member on the Senate side, the USDA said the following: We do not have enough information to ascertain whether or not Texas' proposal is in compliance with the act in regard to the certification of recipients. States are required to seek a waiver from the USDA, and Texas sought no such waiver. Indeed, USDA has raised questions directly to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission for over a year, asking it for information demonstrating this contract is in compliance with Federal law, and has received no real response.

Secondly, there are several worrisome conflicts of interest. The Houston Chronicle reports that the HHS Chief Information Officer involved in contract negotiation was once an employee of a firm that partnered with Accenture. Additionally, the former HHS Deputy Commissioner who helped develop the bidding procedures subsequently went to work for Accenture.

What makes this so unfortunate is that it is so unnecessary. The Food Stamp Program right now is operating with the lowest error rate it has ever had, the result of years of work by USDA and by State and local employees all over the country. Texas itself has a very well-operated program. Why take the risk that a well-run program will, even with the best intentions, be put at risk?

Let me just say, of all the companies with which the government can do business with, I have serious concerns about the company that has been awarded this particular food stamp contract. Accenture is a corporate expatriate, a company that has set up paper offices overseas to avoid paying American taxes, yet comes back to feed at the Federal trough by way of government contracts when it is convenient.

One need only to look at the Department of Homeland Security's $10 billion US-VISIT Program which Accenture oversees to understand such concerns. That contract is over budget, behind schedule, and falling well short of its goals.

Mr. Speaker, this is not simply about an isolated issue in Texas. The taxpayers all over the country pay half of the costs of running the Food Stamp Program. We have an obligation to ensure that that program is run effectively and efficiently and in compliance with the law. Moreover, before other States go down the same path as Texas, we need to be sure we understand what the implications are first.

That is what this motion would accomplish. Protecting vital services and benefits offered through the Food Stamp Program is something all of us share, which is why we need to ensure that those charged with administering and carrying out these programs are by and large public employees. They are the ones with the expertise. They are the ones with the experience on the front lines. And, Mr. Speaker, they were the ones who made it possible for the victims of Hurricane Katrina to put food on the table, who showed us that even in the face of all those failings of leadership government can make a difference in people's lives.

Making sure that continues is what this motion accomplishes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), his opening comments and his conversations with USDA with regard to the Farm Service Agency field offices, it sounds like we had very, very similar conversations. I think we both agree, even in light of yesterday's letter, it is good to trust but it is also good to verify.

With regard to the second portion of the motion to instruct with which the chairman has concerns, I would say that the Food Stamp Program is a Federal program. Fifty percent of the administrative costs are Federal, 100 percent of the benefits are Federal. In our bill there is $40 billion that we are about to appropriate for this program; and, in fact, I think we cannot willy-nilly make changes in the program without coming back to the Federal Government for waivers as such.

In closing, let me say this motion is the right thing to do. I would repeat it is twofold, codifying USDA's decision yesterday to keep open more than 700 FSA offices, returning jurisdiction of the issue to the hands of Congress where it belongs, and ensuring that our food stamp programs are not privatized.

With respect to FSA, I would repeat this motion is needed because even though the FSA Tomorrow Plan has been shelved for the time being, we are already hearing reports that USDA is contemplating reviving this plan, perhaps under a new name, and Congress needs to ensure that the people impacted most directly by this plan, our farmers, have a say in how that modernization plan is carried out.

On the latter point with respect to food stamps, I would repeat, this is not just a Texas issue. The Federal Government and taxpayers all over the country pay half the cost of running the Food Stamp Program. That means that we, the Congress, have an obligation to ensure that the program is run effectively, efficiently and in compliance with the law.

The Food Stamp Program is operating with the lowest error rate it has ever had, the results of years of work by USDA, State and local employees, and bipartisan support from this institution. We do not want to see a repeat of what happened in Colorado where the State spent millions of Federal funds on a computer system that not only did not work, but prevented thousands of needy people from getting government benefits like food assistance and health insurance. Particularly with many believing the State of Texas is counting on the White House to override any efforts by USDA officials to rein in this plan, we know Congress must address this issue and do it immediately.

In all these instances, we are reminded of the same thing, that government has an obligation to people, whether it is ensuring our most needy citizens receive food stamps or our farmers receive the services they need to keep planting, harvesting, and selling crops. This is about the Congress, this institution, its role in ensuring that the American people tackle their toughest challenges together. That is our responsibility to the American people, and fulfilling that obligation is what this motion would accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov