Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 2012

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise with great temerity in opposition to the amendment by the great gentleman from Michigan.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I would note that over the last 2 days we have heard how ag credit and rural housing have had deep cuts in this bill, and yet now we have an amendment that would cut more from them and would impart those funds on a program that between fiscal year 2004 and the current fiscal year has experienced a net budget authority increase of $2 billion, a 121 percent increase, and over the same time period, direct appropriations increases of over $1 billion, or 75 percent. Implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010 would require an additional $1.4 billion in new budget authority. If the President's budget request were adopted, the result would be a 156 percent increase for FDA since 2004.

This level of spending is unsustainable. While the recommended funding level for FDA in this bill is an 11.5 percent decrease below the amount provided in the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution, the subcommittee's overall allocation was reduced by 13.4 percent. Hence, this program suffered a smaller reduction than other programs within the budget.

Once again, with these massive increases in budget authority and in actual spending through direct appropriations over the time period 2004 and the current fiscal year, Mr. Chairman, and given the fact that ag credit and rural housing have already taken the types of deep cuts that are referenced in the rest of the bill, I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PALLONE. I rise in support of the Dingell amendment to partially restore the Food and Drug Administration funding to the fiscal year 2012 agriculture appropriations bill.

I listened to what my colleagues said on the other side of the aisle. The fact of the matter is that today's bill slashes the FDA by $572 million, or 21 percent, below the President's request, and by $285 million, or 12 percent, below this year.

I beg to differ with the gentlewoman. This is not the time to be cutting the FDA's budget. We have had many scares. We have had many outbreaks. We have had people die. We have had people become seriously ill. That is why in the last Congress we passed the landmark Food Safety Act, because we wanted to have increased inspection of food manufacturing plants, increased scrutiny of imported foods, and development of the capability to more quickly respond to food-borne illnesses and minimize their impact.

I don't know about you, but when I go home, I hear a great deal of concern about the quality and the safety of our food supply and our groceries. When people buy food in the supermarket, when they go and buy it at a roadside stand, they are very concerned about the quality of the food and whether they are going to get sick. That is why we passed the landmark Food Safety Act. It is clear that we have just recently had the E. Coli breakout. The Nation's food supply is so extremely vulnerable, and the FDA must be equipped to keep it safe.

The FDA has important responsibilities to protect and promote the health of the American people. To succeed in that mission, FDA must ensure the safety of not just food, but drugs and medical devices that Americans rely on every day. They don't just need to oversee the safety of the products. They also need to be involved in facilitating scientific innovation that makes these products safe, effective, and more affordable.

Now, these efforts are especially critical today because I believe that American competitiveness depends on our ability to innovate. To do that, we must properly fund key agencies like the FDA that are essential to assisting in the development of new drugs and devices. FDA places a high importance on promoting innovation. In fact, they are currently developing a new Innovation Pathway, an initiative to help promising technologies get to market. But let me share something with my colleagues. One of the FDA's senior leadership staff testified before the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee recently and assured us that these cuts would prevent such efforts from moving forward.

What I am trying to emphasize is that whether you look at it from the point of view of the food supply, whether you look at it from the point of view of innovation, to make cuts in the FDA budget simply makes no sense.

It is crucial to job creation. It is crucial to people feeling safe about what they eat, and the government has to be responsible for facilitating an environment where Americans can continue to innovate. It is a key to creating new thriving industries that will produce millions of good jobs here at home and a better future for the next generation. If government abandons its role, we run the real risk of squandering too many opportunities that lead to innovative discoveries and great economic benefits.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is the funding level put forth in today's appropriations bill is inadequate. FDA is already an underfunded agency. If we don't continue to give the FDA the resources it needs to complete its mission, they cannot support initiatives that save lives and create jobs; and these are priorities that Congress should embrace.

I listened to what my colleagues say on the other side of the aisle. I understand we have to be concerned about funding and budgets and that we have a deficit. We also have to figure out what is important as a priority. The American people have told us that food safety is a priority. That is why we passed this landmark bill last year.

There has to be a significant increase in funds, even in this environment, if we are going to keep the food supply safe. If we don't do that, a lot of economic activity is also going to suffer, including innovation, including what we can do for the future to keep this country competitive. So I understand what she is saying, but I also think that it is very important to restore these funds.

I want to commend my colleague, Mr. Dingell, for putting forth this amendment, and I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. KINGSTON. I stand in opposition to the amendment, but with great admiration for the author of the amendment--but still disagreement.

Now, the previous speaker actually said that FDA funding has been slashed. FDA is funded both with direct appropriations and with fees. Last year, their funding level was $3.6 billion. This year, it is $3.64 billion. It is a little bit more. I would say it is level funding. But FDA funding has not been slashed, and it is very important for us to realize that.

Number two, let me show you something about the FDA funding history, Mr. Chairman. If you can see this, this chart actually goes back to 2000 and goes up to 2011. It has been nothing but a 10-year climb uphill for the FDA. And while a lot of people are saying the FDA funding is slashed, there is not even a slight dip in any of this 10-year funding chart. It is very important for us to realize that.

Now, the second point is, in the FDA hearing, I was concerned about FDA's ability to do food safety and to take on this big mission. Here is why:

You hear the figure of about 48 million foodborne illnesses--a very high number which we are enormously concerned about--but 20 percent of those illnesses are from known, or specified, pathogens. Nearly 60 percent of the illnesses from known pathogens comes from the Norovirus. So how do we address this?

The CDC tells us on their March 4 memo that appropriate hand hygiene is likely the most important method to prevent the Norovirus infection and to control transmission. Reducing any Norovirus present on hands is best accomplished by thorough handwashing. Now, in the FDA's 630-page budget request, there is not one mention of Norovirus. I believe that that's relevant.

The second point: The second highest cause of illness is salmonella; but under its authority, the existing authority, before the Food Safety Modernization Act was passed by the House, the FDA updated its own food safety as respect to salmonella. They are saying--and this was according to their own press release in July of last year--that as many as 79,000 illnesses and 30 deaths due to the consumption of eggs contaminated with salmonella may be avoided. That was last year. That was before a new bureaucracy. This bureaucracy, by the way, over a 10-year period of time, will cost $1.4 billion and will hire 17,000 new Federal employees.

The third highest cause of foodborne illnesses is clostridium. Again, in the FDA's 630-page budget request, it was only mentioned once.

I want to say something else that is very important. Do we believe that McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken and Safeway and Kraft Foods--and any brand name that you can think of--aren't concerned about food safety? The food supply in America is very safe as the private sector self-polices because they have the highest motivation. They don't want to be sued. They don't want to go broke. They want their customers to be healthy and happy and to come back and give them repeat business.

Now, in response to the 2006 E. coli outbreak that happened in California with spinach, where three people died and 200 consumers were sickened, the California Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement was made. This is a private sector agreement which has done already 2,000 farm audits on a voluntary basis. Nearly 200 billion servings of lettuce and spinach and other leafy greens produced under this program have been surveyed. It is a successful private sector initiative, and those types of things happen all
the time in the private sector, but we're blind to it.

Here are some numbers from the CDC. It's very important because I think America loves to beat itself up over things all the time. The CDC numbers, Mr. Chairman: There are 48 million foodborne illnesses reported a year, 128,000 hospitalizations, 3,000 deaths. Those numbers are very high. I'm very concerned about it. That's why we spend a lot of money already on food safety.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to continue with this, Mr. Chairman.

You have 311 million Americans eating three meals a day. That's 933 million meals eaten each day. That's nearly 1 billion food consumption events in our country, which is over 360 billion meals consumed. If you do the math in going back to the 48 million foodborne illnesses, according to the USDA, our food safety rate is 99.99 percent.

I want to address the 48 million, but what I also suggest to you is that we can spend $45 million more for FDA funding; we can spend $100 million more or we can spend $1 billion more, but I don't think you can increase this number of a 99.99 percent food safety rate according to the CDC. So, in these times of very tight budgets, it is very important to keep these facts in mind.

I am going to close with this statement by the Democrat Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, and this was as of yesterday. He said he is ``reasonably confident'' that U.S. consumers won't be faced with the same sort of E. coli outbreak now plaguing Germany. He goes on and explains why--because of the current food safety laws in place and the current food safety funding.

Mr. CONAWAY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR. I move to strike the last word.

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Dold). The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FARR. I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend for yielding to me.

I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the Appropriations Committee and their extraordinary staffs for their courtesy to me as we have gone on through this legislation and through the discussion of this amendment.

I've listened to my Republican colleagues tell us how great we're doing. My good friend, for whom I have enormous fondness, presents us with a bunch of pictures of food. It looks great. Maybe it's safe and maybe it's not. He has got a bunch of numbers that say that it's 99.99 percent safe. That sounds wonderful.

But what are the real facts? All right.

The real facts are that, at the time that this cut is going into place on Food and Drug's budget, 3,300 people have been sickened in Germany with a particularly dangerous form of E. coli, and 30 people are dead. It is spreading across the German borders into other countries.

Now, how are we doing over here?

First of all, Food and Drug has been starved of resources for years and has not been able to provide the necessary protection to the American people from imported food, which is coming in and is, frankly, sickening people.

What is the situation? Salmonella and peanuts, bad mushrooms from China, E. coli in peppers coming in from Mexico, melamine in dairy products. It kills kids. It kills babies. It causes all manner of health risks and dangers.

There are bad pharmaceuticals coming in. We haven't been able to get ahold of that problem yet, but I'm going to try and get a bill that will address that; and I'm going to try and see to it that we get a fee system that will enable us to not have to quarrel about these moneys on the House floor.

But in this country, let's look. If this is going so well and if the Secretary of Agriculture is so right and if my dear friend from Georgia is correct, then there is really nothing to worry about; and I would like somebody around here to tell me what I'm then going to tell the 3,000 people who are killed in this country by bad food every single year. 128,000 of them are sick enough that they have to go to hospitals. On top of that, 48 million people get sick.

There is no way on God's green Earth, with the budget that Food and Drug has, that they can properly and adequately protect American food and protect the American people from the dangers of bad imported food. China is the Wild West. The stuff that they're exporting to the United States, quite frankly, I'm not sure I'd feed my hogs.

Having said these things, it is time for us to stand up to the problem and to say, Okay. We're going to spend the money that's necessary to keep people safe. We are talking about $49 million here. A lot of money. But how much do you think it takes to bury 3,000 Americans? How much does it cost to take care of 128,000 people who are hospitalized every year because of this? or to take care of the 48 million people who get sick? and the mothers who lose babies because of bad milk and things of that kind that come in from China, where they put melamine in them to up the fictitious levels of nitrogen and protein?

So I beg you, let us do what is necessary to see to it that Food and Drug has the funds that they need to do the job to protect the American people.

* [Begin Insert]

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. This legislation before us would cut the food safety budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by $87 million below FY 2011 and $205 million below the president's FY 2012 budget request. At a time when we are witnessing one of the deadliest E. coli outbreaks ever overseas in Europe, the House stands ready to cut funding for our food safety systems. This is indefensible and why I am offering an amendment that will which takes $49 million from several administrative accounts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and transfers them to FDA for the implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), of which I am the author. Specifically, this amendment cuts $5 million from the Departmental Administration account, $20 million from the Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments account, $10 million from administrative expenses under the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund, $4 million from administrative expenses under the Rural Housing Insurance Fund, and $10 million from the Foreign Agricultural Service.

I want to make clear that the offsets I am offering are difficult, and not accounts which I would cut in normal circumstances. However, these are not normal circumstances, and the draconian cuts already made by this legislation to the food safety budget leave me with no other choice. The cuts to the USDA General Administration Account and to the Buildings and Administration Account are certainly damaging. I believe in the good work USDA is doing to promote agriculture in this nation, but these specific accounts did not receive as large a cut as others. The safety of our nation's food supply must take priority over these administrative accounts.

Furthermore, the cut to the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund, which provides loans to farmers when they can not obtain them in the private sector, will be taken from an administrative account which will not affect the loan levels to farmers in need. The cut to the Rural Housing Insurance Fund, which guarantees some rural housing loans, will also be taken from an administrative account which will not impact the loan level. Finally, while I am supportive of the Foreign Agricultural Service and their work to promote agricultural exports overseas and their international development efforts, I believe the American people would agree that at a time when we recently had a recent scare with Salmonella in eggs and authorities have agreed that the E. coli outbreak which is impacting Europe could happen here, our priority must be on the safety of our own food supply.

I want to make it very clear that the money given to FDA by my amendment is intended for their food safety activities. Last Congress when this institution overwhelmingly passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act, it had bipartisan support, the support of consumer groups, food safety groups and industry, and a guaranteed source of funding for food safety activities. The food safety reform law gives FDA the tools it needs to prevent and detect food-borne illnesses--like the E. coli outbreak in Germany--from occurring.

Under this new law, the FDA has the authority to recall food products, to require food facilities to have safety plans to identify and mitigate risks, and to increase the frequency of FDA inspections of facilities here and
abroad. Unfortunately, a dedicated fee to fund the changes to our food system was dropped by my friends in the Senate and now we are witnessing a perfect storm--because of the political whims of my colleagues we are limiting the funding available for food safety activities at the same time the FDA has the responsibility to begin implementation of the historic food safety law.

Year after year we witness devastating outbreaks that sicken or kill innocent people. We have seen E. coli in peppers, Salmonella in peanuts, melamine in milk--the list goes on. A fee system is not a radical concept. The drug industry pays a user fee dedicated to assisting the FDA with the review of new drug applications and the medical device industry pays a user fee dedicated to the review of marketing applications. Such a fee guarantees that the FDA has a source of funding dedicated to their review process free from political posturing.

We can all agree that we must reduce our budget deficit and that all options to cut spending must be on the table. However, at a time when we are witnessing the latest E. coli outbreak in Europe sicken nearly 3,200 people and kill 33, it is unconscionable that we would cut funding from the agency whose responsibility it is to prevent such food-borne illnesses here in the United States.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment restoring funding to the FDA for their food safety activities.

* [End Insert]

Mr. FARR. I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 13 OFFERED BY MR. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who provide nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for mohair under section 1201 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. (7 U.S.C. 8731).

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment to limit the subsidies for mohair.

Mohair is something that back in World War II we needed for our military uniforms. The problem is we haven't used mohair in our military uniforms since the Korean war, and yet the subsidies still continue. So this is a commonsense amendment to simply limit this. This is roughly $1 million a year. This is something that Congresses previously had eliminated. It crept back in.

And this limitation amendment that I would offer, I would urge my colleagues to vote for. My understanding is there's no opposition on either side of the aisle.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 14 OFFERED BY MR. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to make (or to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel in the Department of Agriculture to make) payments for the storage of cotton under section 1204(g) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8734(g)) or for the storage of peanuts under section 1307(a) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 8757(a)).

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would hope this body would take this amendment with the same pace we did the mohair subsidies, but perhaps not.

This amendment seeks to eliminate the cotton and peanut storage payments that we have been making. I would point out to my colleagues that President Obama recommended terminating this program in his fiscal 2012 budget. No other agriculture commodities receive this type of assistance.

I would like to read a paragraph that's found on the WhiteHouse.gov Web site:

The credits allow producers to store their cotton and peanuts at the government's cost until prices rise. Therefore, storage credits have a negative impact on the amount of commodities on the market. Because storage is covered by the government, producers may store their commodities for longer than necessary. There is no reason the government should be paying for the storage of cotton or peanuts, particularly since it does not provide this assistance for any other commodities.

I happen to concur with the President on this. I hope my colleagues would find this to be a commonsense amendment to say we should not be specifying winners and losers. In this particular case, we're going to offer a storage credit for just cotton and just peanuts. It's something that I think should be eliminated. I would hope the body would concur. I would hope we would understand we're going to have to make some changes in the way we do things. This is one instance where I actually agree with the President. I'm proud to stand in support of that and would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARROW. I move to strike the last word.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to eliminate storage and handling payments for cotton and peanuts.

I represent a lot of producers of these commodities, and I guess it makes me a little bit more sensitive to why storage and handling is an important part of our agricultural policy and why this amendment could have potentially devastating impacts if allowed to become law.

I believe it's in the best interest of our country to support domestic agriculture. If you think our reliance on foreign oil is a nightmare, imagine what it would be like if we had to rely that much on foreign sources of food and fiber. For that reason, it has been the policy of the Congress for decades to provide a safety net to help protect domestic farmers where prices are low and world markets are unfavorable.

If you represent farm country or if you've ever worked on a farm bill, you have some idea of what a delicate balance it can be to use the different tools at our disposal to craft a law that meets the needs of farmers and consumers. Different commodities have different economies. Prices sometimes swing wildly. Sometimes, even biological differences need to be accounted for.

For example, if peanuts are not stored correctly, they can develop toxicity that renders them not only useless, but dangerous, to the consumer. Storage and handling assistance has been developed as an efficient policy for peanuts because it not only gives the farmer some latitude about how long he can store his crops, but it also improves food safety for the public.

Mr. Chairman, I was on the Ag Committee back in 2008 when we crafted the last farm bill. It's been the law of the land since then and will continue to be until next year. It's the basis on which every farmer has planned during that time. This amendment creates uncertainty for those farmers. It threatens their jobs, and it threatens the domestic production the rest of us depend on.

I believe this amendment is bad policy, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CONAWAY. I also oppose the amendment.

This amendment does not save one nickel in fiscal 2012. It's a bit theater. And unlike mohair, peanuts and cotton have a little different circumstances. The storage that is talked about here is only paid if the prices for these two commodities drops below their loan rate. CBO does not estimate this to happen for the next decade in terms of these prices. The loan rates are substantially below where the current prices are. That means the producers pay for these storage costs as these products are moved to market.

So this amendment, while we debate it for some 15 to 20 minutes, will cost more to debate than it will save for the taxpayers. It is an integral part of the safety net that these producers rely upon.

You've heard this over and over tonight: The Ag Committee is best suited to develop a proper safety net and an ag policy for this country. This country has had an ag policy from its inception. We ought to stand by that ag policy once it's put in place. We put it in place in 2008. Many tradeoffs were made between conservation programs, commodity programs. Cotton and peanuts were in the mix.

We will have those exact same conversations this time next year. The farm bill will come to the floor, and those who disagree with the farm policy that's developed in the Ag Committee will have ample opportunity to come to this floor and make these arguments once again. But to do this in an appropriations bill in basically a drive-by shooting manner, in my view, is wrongheaded. We ought to trust that the Ag Committee will get this work done and get it done properly.

The 2008 farm bill was put in place. Ag producers across this country, bankers across this country, implement dealers across this country have looked at that as a deal. Most folks in the business world don't back up on a deal when they don't have to. And we don't have to in this particular instance because, as I said at the start of this, it does not cost the taxpayer any money as long as prices are high. CBO and most folks estimate that in the near term the prices will not drop below 18 cents a pound for peanuts or 52 cents a pound for cotton.

So I respectfully disagree with my colleague's attempt to alter the farm bill in this way, in an appropriations bill, and I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I think this amendment is very, very ill advised.

Storage and handling fees are an integral part of the peanut program and the cotton program. Removal of these fees will strike against the growers, the farmers' bottom line. The current marketing loan rate is $355 per ton. There has been no increase in the peanut loan rate, which is the safety net, since the 2002 farm bill. With the new farm bill expected to take place next year, it's unfair for the program to change dramatically in this final year of the 2008 farm bill.

Peanut growers changed their program from a supply-management program, in 2002, to a marketing loan program. We eliminated the old quota system. This included a price reduction from $610 per ton to $355 per ton marketing loan. The growers will lose even more if the program suffers another $50 per ton reduction due to the elimination of the storage and handling fees.

Peanuts are a semiperishable commodity. This is different from corn, from wheat and other commodities. It is economically unfeasible for producers to store their peanuts on the farm like other commodities such as corn and wheat. Peanuts need a secure and an atmospheric-controlled environment. Peanuts require intense and constant management in the warehouse storage, which a farmer does not have the skills to do.

Without proper management, a farmer's peanuts could go from what is known as a Seg 1 loan price, which is the best, to a Seg 3 loan price, which is contamination due to aflatoxin.

Elimination of the storage and handling program could certainly impact food safety, the safety of the product.

Shellers basically control over 75 percent of the peanuts after the peanuts leave the farmer's control. Since peanuts are semi-perishable and due to the highly concentrated shelling industry, farmers are at the mercy of the shellers in terms of pricing. Shellers could possibly force the farmer to accept a lower price that would cover the storage and handling cost. Farmers then have no alternative in selling their peanuts. That eliminates the competitive edge.

This could effectively lower the loan rate to producers, as I said, by $50 a ton. The storage and handling program has effectively been a no-net-cost program to the government. Thus, the elimination of it will not help to reduce the Federal deficit.

Again, we are here about to pull the rug out from under farmers who have relied upon what this Congress and what this government has done in setting farm policy starting from 2008 to 2012. Why would we come at this point and pull the rug out from under them and upset all of their plans? Many times they have made loans, they've had to purchase equipment, and particularly throughout the Southeast, the equipment that is required for southeastern peanut growers and southeastern farmers is varied. We've got a broad portfolio, unlike the Midwest. We grow multiple crops.

In the Southeast, from Virginia all the way to Texas, you will find that farmers will grow corn; they will grow grain, of course; they'll grow peanuts; they'll grow soybeans; and they'll grow cotton. Each of those commodities at least will require three different kinds of equipment, and the combines and the equipment for cotton costs anywhere from $250,000 to $350,000. Other equipment for peanuts, for grain, $150,000, $500,000.

This is going to undermine the bottom line, it's going to remove the competitive edge that American peanut growers have, and it's going to devastate our ability to maintain the highest quality, the safest, and the most economical peanuts anywhere in the world.

I think this is very, very ill-advised. I think it will undermine American agriculture. It will lessen our food security, and certainly that is the last thing that we need to do because we are already energy insecure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

The amendment was rejected.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON LEE OF TEXAS

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 80, after line 2, insert the following:

SEC. __X. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments'' by $13,000,000, and increasing the amount made available for the ``Office of the Secretary,'' by $5,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the Chairman, and I thank the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee for their kindness and their deliberateness in this very long evening and as well the ranking member along with the chairman.

This is a simple amendment about food and about helping more Americans get healthy food. There is not one of us that does not understand how dry and difficult a desert is. This amendment is simply about food deserts in rural and urban areas.

This amendment provides a $5 million increase to the Office of the Secretary to allow assistance to provide relief to those who are suffering from the lack of access to food quality.

This is a healthy child, we would hope. That healthy child needs to have good food. These funds will increase the availability of affordable healthy food in underserved urban and rural communities, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers.

Fast-food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low-income neighborhoods, offering few if any healthy options. In rural areas, there may be no access at all. This particularly impacts African American and Hispanic communities and, as I indicated, rural communities.

This climate in the difficult times that we have requires us to be able to
allow families to have access to good food. We also have the issues of obesity and as well nutrition. Food deserts impact many districts, and I will say to you that Texas in particular has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other State.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas face a nutrition issue. Targeting assistance to food desert areas will provide healthy food to affected areas, open new markets for farmers, create jobs, and bolster development in distressed communities.

Farmers markets are a good idea, but farmers markets sometimes are difficult to find in our communities. Again, let me emphasize, this is about rural and urban areas. This initiative will provide for the availability of healthy food alternatives to some 23 million people living in food deserts.

Let me just suggest to you that these families that we care for, families, young families of the military, many of you have heard stories where the military families are on food stamps. Many of them live in areas beyond their bases, and some of their families are back home in rural and urban areas. This amendment, which will provide an $8 million gift back to the government, will give a mere $5 million to provide the opportunity for those food desert loopholes, if you will--rural places in our Nation where there are big gaps with access to food, and as well urban areas--to have access to the opportunity for good and healthy food.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that addresses the question of helping those who need healthy food.

* [Begin Insert]

I thank the Chairman for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2112, which will reach back into the bill to increase the funding for the Office of the Secretary by $5 million dollars. This increase, provided for by reducing the funding for operations and maintenance of Buildings and Facilities in order to fund President Obama's Healthy Food Funding Initiative, HFFI. Supporting this amendment will not only fund an important pilot program, but save the government $8 million.

Funding HFFI will increase the availability of affordable, healthy foods in underserved urban and rural communities, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers.

These ``food deserts'', communities in which residents do not have access to affordable and healthy food options, disproportionally affect African American and Hispanic communities. Fast food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low income neighborhoods, offering few, if any healthy options.

Many of my colleagues across the aisle have made arguments about the economic climate, and the need for budgetary cuts, and I agree that we must work to reduce the deficit. We cannot, however, continue to make irresponsible cuts to programs for the underserved, lower income families, and minorities.

Since the mid-1970s, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased sharply for both adults and children, and obesity is a grave health concern for all Americans. However, food deserts have taken a toll on low income and minority communities and exacerbated growing obesity rates and health problems.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 80 percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight or obese. African American children from low income families have a much higher risk for obesity than those in higher income families.

The CDC also estimates African American and Mexican American adolescents ages 12-19 are more likely to be overweight, at 21 percent and 23 percent respectively, than non-Hispanic white adolescents who are 14 percent overweight. In children 6-11 years old, 22 percent of Mexican American children are overweight, compared to 20 percent of African American children and 14 percent of non-Hispanic white children.

Food deserts have greatly impacted my constituents in the 18th Congressional District, and citizens throughout the state of Texas. Texas has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other state. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, identified 92 food desert census tracts in Harris County alone. These areas are subdivisions of the county with between 1,000 to 8,000 low income residents, with 33 percent of people living more than a mile from a grocery store.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas are overweight or obese. These statistics underscore the staggering affect food deserts have on the health of low income and minority communities. In Houston and other cities across the country, local programs have proved that well targeted funding and assistance can create viable business outcomes and increase access to healthy food.

Targeting federal financial assistance to food desert areas through the Healthy Food Funding Initiative will provide more healthy food to affected neighborhoods, open new markets for farmers, create jobs, and bolster development in distressed communities.

The Healthy Food Funding Initiative is not a handout, or a crutch. Funding through this program is intended to provide financial and technical assistance in support of market planning, promotion efforts, infrastructure and operational improvements, and increase availability of locally and regionally produced foods.

This initiative will increase the availability of healthy food alternatives to the 23.5 million people living in food deserts nationwide. Yes, we must work toward reducing the deficit, but cutting programs that provide healthy food to those who simply do not have access to nutritional options, is not the way.

* [End Insert]

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. KINGSTON. My dear friend from Texas has worked diligently to find something to work out with this. As I had indicated to her last night, we're trying to work on some alternatives and see if there's a way to do it. Just in the last 30 minutes, I've gotten something from GAO that says that you could actually cut out $45 million dollars from this program and that it would not affect the potential of it.

Right now what I will do--and I know my friend from California is rising. Let me yield to him because I know he probably has a different view, but I want to kind of keep the debate going.

Mr. FARR. Go ahead. I'll just strike the last word.

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, you've got 4 minutes from me. You could still strike the last word. That gives you 9 minutes.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I have concerns about where the money comes from as all these bills are offsetting, but I think that the purpose here should be funded. We have this whole initiative--and some of it has been attacked tonight--about trying to get healthy foods grown by American farmers to people in areas that are called food deserts, as the gentlelady from Texas pointed out. There are places that people just can't go. There isn't a grocery store. There aren't fresh fruits and vegetables.

I mean, think of the 7-Eleven. That's the kind of convenience stores that are around. Even the one we use up here a couple of blocks away is very limited in the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables it has.

So what this initiative is all about, and it's the President's initiative too, is trying to get food--it's an educational process. I think the hardest cultural--this is what I learned from living in other cultures in the Peace Corps. The hardest thing to do is to get people to change their eating habits. We all know that struggle when we go on a diet. So it takes a lot of education. It takes a lot of support, but it also takes the need to have access to it.

You need to have access to the fresh fruits and vegetables, and they can either come to you in a farmers market or you can go to them. But if you have neither a farmers market and there's nothing to go to, you have no option. And that's what this amendment is about, getting some money into the program that will be able to outreach and getting good, nutritious food to families who most need it who, without that, have a good chance of not growing up healthy, high incidence of obesity, high incidence of diabetes, high-risk issues that cost a lot of money for the taxpayers when they have to go on dialysis or have to be under treatment.

So we have spent many years here in the committee--and the chairman knows it very well--of looking at how do we prevent this from happening when the choices are there. These are preventable diseases and preventable ill health situations, but we've got to reach out and do it, and that's what this amendment does and I think it deserves support.

Mr. KINGSTON. If I could reclaim my time, I want to read this quote from GAO. It says: The committee may wish to consider reducing the request for this initiative for FY 12 by $45 million until the effectiveness of these
demonstration projects has been established.

And I want to say to my friend from Texas, we had some talks around this but not directly addressing it, not direct hearing; but I do remember and the gentleman from California might and I think Ms. Foley might remember that the Safeway in Washington, D.C., I believe has some sort of grant I believe to operate in an area that was considered a food desert, and I believe that that is one of the most profitable Safeways there is. Do either of you have a recollection of that? Thank you for pulling the rug out from underneath me this early.

Mr. FARR. I have a recollection of that.

Mr. KINGSTON. Do you remember that, Mr. Farr, that discussion?

Mr. FARR. Yes.

Mr. KINGSTON. Was that not about food deserts?

Mr. FARR. Yes, it was. But remember Ms. Kaptur's amendment in our committee of trying to subsidize farmers markets to go into high-risk areas to get it started so that it does develop a market approach and can be sustainable, but we reach out and do those kinds of things.

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me reclaim my time. GAO reported that a variety of approaches, including improving access to targeted foods, have the potential to increase the consumption of targeted food that could contribute to a healthy diet, but little is known about the effectiveness of these approaches.

And so I think what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is continue to oppose this; but knowing my good friend from Texas and from California will keep this as a priority, we'll talk about this. You know, the hour's late. The gentlewoman's been working on this for a long time, but I need a little more focus on it before I could accept it.

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. First of all, let me thank Mr. Farr and Mr. Kingston. I had hoped my friend from Georgia could see in his heart that this is a very small microcosm for a very large issue, and that is that food deserts do exist and the families that are impacted, number of families that include those who are members of the United States military from the very youngest child.

I have been fiscally responsible, if that is the case, to narrow this very well, and I have no quarrel with individual chains engaging in marketing outreach. But I'm talking about hard-to-serve areas that include urban and rural areas where there are no food chains to engage in any benevolent assistance.

I'm also suggesting to you that if you look at the landscape of districts across the Nation, just take for example my district is number 32 in regards to food insecurity, but there are 31 above me. The people have limited access to food.

I enjoy the point that Mr. Farr made about Ms. Kaptur's farmers markets. This will infuse energy into the farmers markets. This will create jobs for a limited amount of pilot resources. This is the right thing to do. This is to take a great land like America and say we want everybody to minimally have access to good, healthy, nutritious food.

So I would ask for the humanitarian consideration of my friends on the other side of the aisle. I thank the gentleman from California for his instructiveness and the work of the members of this Appropriations Committee, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment. It fills the gaping hole of the lack of food by providing resources to cure the problem of food deserts.

Mr. FARR. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 23 OFFERED BY MR. GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 80, after line 2, insert the following:

Sec. __X. For the cost of broadband loans, as authorized by section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, to remain available until expended, there is hereby appropriated, and the amount otherwise provided by this Act for payments to the General Services Administration for rent under the heading ``Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments'' is hereby reduced by, $6,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, over 50 congressional districts across our country have at least 10 percent of their population without access to high-speed broadband. My district is one of these over-50 districts. Now, this is a significant impediment to job creation. We have farmers without access to the high-speed broadband. We have many small businesses in our districts, including bed and breakfasts which impact our tourism without that access. This amendment helps address this situation.

Now, the underlying bill zeroes out the loan program for rural broadband. This is down from $22.3 million that we just closed out a few months ago for FY 11, and with a healthy respect for the leadership of the Agricultural appropriations subcommittee, I think this is a mistake.

I know that there have been issues with this program in the past. I have read the IG report. I will also say that my understanding is the administration has made progress since the publishing of that report. One of the things that has been said about this program is it has not been able to address the significant volume of requests, and I think it's important to note that in March 2011 they cleared the backlog of all the applications for the program; and, in fact, there's now up to $100 million in new loan applications, showing the interest in this program.

Another criticism has been that this program is duplicative and that, in fact, you can apply under telemedicine for rural areas. And I will tell you that we have tried that in our district with no success, and this program that I'm offering as an amendment today for $6 million, a loan program, fully offset, is the only program exclusively dedicated to rural broadband. And this program, this amendment, $6 million can give us access to and support over $100 million in loan applications.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help create jobs, and it will help our farmers with profitability. Of course, I'm biased. But I believe we've got the smartest, the hardest working farmers in the world. Their issue is profitability, and this amendment will help.

The CBO assesses this amendment as neutral, and it says that it will reduce outlays by $2 million in 2012. Let me say that again. CBO says this amendment will reduce outlays by $2 million in 2012.

So how do we offset this? How do we provide access for farmers and small businesses to loan programs? We cut the Federal bureaucracy--$6 million in office rental payments.

Now, the USDA is blessed with some of the most significant office space among all the Federal bureaucracy. And in addition to what they have here in the District, in Beltsville, Maryland, there is additional office space of which they possess. So on top of all of that, there is $151 million in this appropriations bill for the rental of office space, including right here on M Street in Washington, D.C. This is a good pay-for to give access to our farmers so that they can have access to rural broadband.

So to all my colleagues, I say this is a good amendment. The only amendment that provides exclusive rural broadband access. It's supported by the American Farm Bureau. It's supported by the New York State Farm Bureau and numerous chambers of commerce in my district. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIR

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.

The gentleman from New York must remain on his feet.

Mr. GOSAR. I rise in support of the amendment proposed by Mr. Gibson and Mr. Owens because I think it is exactly what the American people want us to do here in Washington. The people expect us to be responsible with their tax money. The people have made it clear, more than clear, that the Federal Government is too big. Our job is to look for waste, inefficiencies, and bloat. The Gibson-Owens amendment has found such bloat and seeks to remedy it.

There is no doubt that the USDA does good work and that the agency should have suitable workspace to conduct its work. Indeed, as Mr. Gibson has pointed out, the USDA has 3 million square feet of prime office space on The National Mall in a beautiful building that contributes to the architectural beauty of the Nation's Capital. To learn that the USDA also has a campus in Maryland that occupies 45 acres of land is, itself, concerning.

With all that office space currently available to the USDA in the Washington area and an additional $151 million to rent office space elsewhere, why does the USDA want to rent more office space in D.C.? The people of this country will not begrudge an architecturally distinguished office for the Nation's Capital, but a luxurious high-rent office in addition is too much.

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say to the gentleman from Arizona, if I have time left over, I will yield you some. But you can also get your own 5 minutes if you want.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this.

I want to start out by saying that the committee has taken a really close look at this over the years. And I wish you could see, from where you are sitting, better the saturation level of broadband access in the United States of America. That's in the blue. As you can see, the entire country is mostly blue according to this.

But I would not want your eyes to just strain from there, so I will give you some numbers here:

New Jersey, 100 percent penetration; Florida, 99.9 percent penetration; New York, 99.8 percent; Georgia, 99.4 percent; Arizona, 98.2 percent.

This program is not necessary. And in a time when we're talking about saving money, we do not need to increase this account. The process is burdensome. We get lots of complaints from people who have had applications pending for a long time and they can't get their questions answered, or they get approved but they can't get their money. Their eligibility is too broad. And in many areas, it competes with private sector broadband service.

Now, the IG report had a number of things that they found. They found that this rural broadband program granted loans of $103 million to 64 communities near large cities, including $45 million loans to 19 suburban subdivisions within a few miles of Houston, Texas. That's hardly the intent of the program.

The IG report also found out that they were competing with preexisting broadband access in many places and found that 159 of the 240 communities associated with the loans--that's 66 percent--already had service. I will repeat that. Sixty-six percent of the communities who got grants already had service.

Now, there was a little criticism, and the program was supposed to be reformed. But the IG took another look at it and found that, in 2009, only eight out of the 14 recommendations had had action taken on them. Thirty-four of 37 applications for providers were in areas where there were already private operators offering service, 34 out of 37.

So when our committee took a look at this, we felt like the program needed changing. It did not need new money. So I must respectfully disagree with my good friends who are offering this and stand in opposition of the amendment.

With that, I yield to my friend from Arizona.

Mr. GOSAR. Well, I would like to disagree. And that is, as I serve a vast part of Arizona, 60 percent of Arizona, in which I serve a large number of Native American tribes which are fighting to try to get economic development and trying to get broadband service, this is exactly the kind of funding that we want to direct you to the appropriate place.

The Native Americans are exactly the place that this could go. This is the economic development that they need, and they're currently in the process of trying to get that. They're trying to build that infrastructure, and this is exactly where that fund can be.

Mr. KINGSTON. I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. GIBSON. I thank the chairman for yielding.

I just want to reiterate that there is significant need for expanding access to rural broadband in America. We've got over 50 districts that have at least 10 percent of their population that are not in the 21st century, that don't have access to the high-speed broadband.

I want to remind my colleagues, this loan program reduces outlays by $2 million in 2012, according to the CBO. This program should not be zeroed out. It should not go from $22 million to zero. We should accept this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment so that we can continue to make progress with rural broadband.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Respectfully, my chairman and I disagree on this issue.

I raised this in our subcommittee of Appropriations, and his superior abilities to convince the subcommittee prevailed. But I weigh in on the side of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Gosar, and let me tell you why.

The information that the committee chairman has is correct insofar as it gives you numbers on broadband access that will allow you a speed of receiving service that is so slow that it is basically 20th century rather than 21st century communications. For example, under the speed at which the numbers that the gentleman from Georgia has derived cover, this 99, 98 percent coverage, it would take you 9 hours to download a movie. Now, who's going to do that?

But with this digital world we're in, the kinds of data that need to be unloaded in order to be a lone eagle, to have a business, to have the type of broadband access that my colleague from Arizona would like the Native Americans in his State to have, would require a much faster broadband service. And when you look at the speed of the broadband service that is consistent with having a robust community that has real broadband service, my State is at the rock bottom. Less than half of the people in my State have the kind of robust service that is typical of urban areas or suburban areas.

The same could be said for my colleague from Arizona and the areas of his State where Native Americans so desperately need the opportunity to market products over the Internet. So I encourage my colleagues to support the position of my colleagues, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Gosar. And I rise in support of their amendment.

I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio.

Ms. KAPTUR. I just wanted to ask the gentlelady if she would find the present time convenient to enter into the discussion regarding GIPSA, though we are on this amendment at this point.

Mrs. LUMMIS. With the Chairman's leave, I would consent.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Would you consent to a departure as I use the remainder of my 5 minutes to discuss the issue of the stockyards and the GIPSA rule?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source