Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5384, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5384, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 23, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro for working together on this important bill. They have taken the President's inadequate budget proposal and made it better.

Chairman Bonilla and his staff deserve to be congratulated for doing the right thing with this bill. And Ranking Member DeLauro and the Democratic members of the Appropriations Committee, including Ranking Member Obey, deserve credit for improving the chairman's mark.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the very important antihunger programs in this bill that make a real difference in the lives of millions of people here in the United States and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be a cochair of the Congressional Hunger Center and of the Hunger Caucus. I have seen how important our anti-hunger programs are to low-income Americans. I have met families who, through no fault of their own, have to rely on Federal anti-hunger programs to put food on their table.

In my own district, I am working with State and local officials to make sure every eligible person in need signs up and receives these important benefits so that central Massachusetts and southeastern Massachusetts is made up of hunger-free communities.

On the Federal level, we must continue to fight for critical anti-hunger programs. In his budget, the President eliminated the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food to low-income mothers and children under 6 years of age, as well as America's elderly poor. Literally hundreds of thousands of people would have been left to fend for themselves if this program had been shut down, as the President had requested.

Thankfully, Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro not only restored the funding eliminated by President Bush, they also provided an increase of $11 million over last year's level. I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are thankful that this bill includes a $40 million increase for the WIC Program over last year's allocation, or $44 million more than the President's request.

WIC is one of the most successful domestic maternal and infant health and nutrition programs in the history of the United States. I am troubled, however, that funding in this bill for the child nutrition programs is below the President's request and that funding for the food stamp program is almost $3 million less than last year, at a time when more and more and more people are falling below the poverty line.

Mr. Speaker, even though I believe the funding levels for anti-hunger programs should be increased even more than what this bill was able to provide, I am more concerned that the administration and Congress continue to lack a cohesive anti-hunger, antipoverty strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Agriculture Appropriations Act is not the most appropriate bill to establish such a policy, but it is the vehicle that ultimately funds many of the important and most fundamental programs that help lift people out of poverty. I believe we can end hunger and poverty, if only we have the political will to do so.

I challenge my colleagues in this chamber to do more. And it will not necessarily cost a great deal more, but it will take far better coordination of public and private efforts. It will take a concerted effort by the Federal Government, and it will take the heart and compassion of a great Nation to eradicate poverty and hunger in the United States once and for all.

I believe in the heart of the American people. I think we saw that heart after Katrina. I think we see that heart every time there is a crisis abroad and children are in need.

Mr. Speaker, over the next year, I hope we all rise to the occasion and commit to this worthy and necessary goal. Overall, Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill should be commended for restoring funding for many of our most important domestic hunger and nutrition programs.

Regrettably, due once again to the extreme limits on the Agriculture Appropriations Bill, the same cannot be said of international hunger and good aid programs. The committee was able to maintain last year's funding levels, but so much more is needed.

The George McGovern-Bob Dole International Food for Education Program is basically frozen at last year's levels. This was done despite a bipartisan letter from over 100 Members of Congress asking that funding for the McGovern program be restored to its fiscal year 2001 level of $300 million.

This bill provides only one-third of that amount. McGovern-Dole has proven itself time and time again to be one of our most effective tools in reducing hunger in school-aged children, and increasing attendance and academic performance, especially among girls in some of the poorest places in the world.

I know that the committee supports this program. I

just hope that the chairman and the ranking member will find a way in conference negotiations to increase the funding for this program so that it can reach more children in the neediest communities in the developing world.

Mr. Speaker, I also regret that P.L. 480, title II, food for peace, emergency food aid and development programs, have also basically been level-funded, although I do appreciate that the committee did find a few additional dollars for this program. In fiscal year 2006, Congress has ostensibly provided $1.218 billion for title II, and this bill provides $1.226 billion for title II.

Unfortunately, what is hidden by these figures is that, for the past 3 years, the Congress has ended up appropriating about $1.5 billion each year so that title II can meet global food emergencies. This year is no exception. In the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental, which is currently awaiting House-Senate conference negotiations, there is about $350 million in title II emergency food aid; $225 million of that emergency food aid is for the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.

If the President had put those funds in last year's regular budget request, and Congress had approved and appropriated those funds in the regular agriculture appropriations bill, then that food would be on its way to the people of Darfur today.

Instead, the World Food Programme has been forced to cut food rations in half for 2.6 million Darfur refugees and displaced people.

Why should we care about this? Well, Mr. Speaker, as a Congress, we should care because this is deceptive budgeting, and poor planning hinders our ability to respond to emergencies as they arise. But more importantly, much more importantly, we should care because people are dying from lack of food because we do not have the funding in hand that we knew ahead of time we would need for fiscal year 2006 and that we should plan now to have in hand for fiscal year 2007.

We know emergencies happen. We know we have been appropriating about $300 million or more each year for the past 3 years in supplemental appropriations bills to meet those needs. Let us do the right thing and build such funds into our planning process.

Put those funds in the regular budget and include and approve them in the regular agriculture appropriations bill. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. No country in the world has been as responsive to international food emergencies as the United States.

No other country even comes close to our generosity. The United States has been and continues to be the leader in providing food and humanitarian aid for Darfur. It is past time that the rest of the world step up to the plate.

The funds sitting in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental will not reach the President's desk until June. And therefore the food aid itself will not reach the people of Darfur until November. If USAID had those moneys now up front, the ration cuts in Darfur would not be happening, period. I appeal to the President. I appeal to the appropriators and to the leadership of this House, do not repeat this mistake in 2007. We need to plan ahead.

Somehow, before this bill comes back to us as a conference report, we need to find a way to substantially increase Title II funding so that we are not robbing food aid from one hungry family to feed another simply because we failed to provide the necessary funding to plan for and to meet global food emergencies.

Mr. Speaker, I know the committee cannot do this on its own, which is why I make a plea for all of us to work this problem out, so that we are not faced with such desperate choices next year.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member DeLauro, and their colleagues on the committee should be commended for their hard work on this bill. They have done the best they could despite the difficult choices that face them in this process. They deserve our respect and gratitude.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a moment to thank Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro and members of the committee for providing funding for the Congressional Hunger Center. The Hunger Center is co-chaired by my colleague Congressman JO ANN EMERSON and myself, and it trains young people to be the future leaders of the anti-hunger movement. The Congressional Hunger Center, I think, is known to most Members of this Chamber. It has an incredible staff, an excellent staff, and does a very good job in raising awareness and getting young people involved and getting them to feel passionate about combating hunger, not only here in the United States but around the world. I think every Member of this Chamber should be proud of this center's work. So I am pleased that the committee continues to fund this center.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I am sure there will be a number of amendments offered during the day. I just want to call my colleagues' attention to one amendment that may be offered by Representative Johnson of Illinois that I strongly oppose, and I would urge all my colleagues to oppose it as well.

This is an amendment that is supposedly an attempt to tackle the obesity problem in this country, but what it is, is an amendment that would restrict the choice of people who are on food stamps. It would basically dictate to people on food stamps that they could not buy certain things, and this is problematic, I think, for a number of reasons.

First, I think the emphasis should be on promoting healthier foods in our nutrition and not on constant punitive measures against poor people. If we want to deal with the obesity problem in this country, which is a serious problem, we should do so thoughtfully, and we should do so with considerable deliberation to make sure that what we are doing is actually solving and tackling the problem. I do not think this will do that.

Secondly, this bill I do not think is the appropriate bill for us to make these kinds of big changes. There are other bills that are more appropriate coming down the line, and I hope that my colleagues will respect that. But, again, rather than limiting choices for poor people, we should focus our attention and put the emphasis on healthier foods, like fruits and vegetables, without limiting people's choices. We should focus on nutrition education, and we should focus on raising people out of poverty instead of constantly blaming them and trying to pursue punitive measures, which I think is not only the wrong way to deal with the problem but I also think shows kind of a lack of respect for people who are struggling in this country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider the DeLauro amendment that was rejected in Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the DeLauro amendment will increase funding for alternative energy research, something that is desperately needed in our Nation these days. The cost of the amendment is fully offset by rolling back a mere 1.21 percent, the tax cut for Americans making more than $1 million annually.

Mr. Speaker, the energy crisis continues to get worse and worse in our country every day. All you need to do is fill up your gas tank or open your heating bill to know that the cost of fuel is skyrocketing, with no signs of letting up anytime soon, if ever.

We can continue to ignore this crisis until the costs are prohibited or our supplies run dry, or we can do the responsible thing and invest in research and development of alternative energy sources, something that we should have been doing a long time ago.

Our energy needs are growing every day in this Nation and in the rest of the world as well. We have to find other ways to meet those needs. We need a substitute for oil and other fossil fuels. There are many promising alternative energy sources out there that we need to explore immediately to ensure that they are available in the near future. The DeLauro amendment will help support these efforts.

Mr. Speaker, in the Rules Committee last night, we were told, as we are told often, that there is a germaneness issue and that thereby they would not make this amendment in order, but the fact of the matter is that those of us on this side of the aisle are trying to actually solve America's problems. We are trying to propose alternatives and pay for them as we go. We are not just proposing ideas and not identifying where the money would come from. We are actually laying out a plan to make this country energy independent, to try to deal with the rising costs of gas and of oil, and this is the only way we can do this. We are constantly denied the opportunity to debate and to vote on a comprehensive plan or to deal with this issue. This is the moment.

I want to point out to my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the agricultural appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the DeLauro amendment. A ``no'' vote will allow us to be able to support an initiative and a plan to deal with this energy crisis, to actually map out a strategy to support renewable energy sources.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/