Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to follow on the comments on Freedom to Farm of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), my good colleague from the subcommittee, and just set the record straight here. We are now spending more money to prop up rural America in this country than we ever did prior to Freedom to Farm. It is into the multibillions. In the year of 1999, in the regular appropriation and the supplemental, over $7 billion. Then in the year 2000, $8.7 billion. In the Crop Insurance bill that just moved through here like lightening speed a few weeks ago and signed by the administration, $5.5 billion. Prior to Freedom to Farm being passed, about 8 cents of every dollar that a farmer in this country made came through the government. It is now 43 cents on average. The tragedy in Freedom to Farm is we are paying people who do not produce. This is an amazing program. This is freedom not to farm. We are spending more than we ever spent in the entire history of our farm programs. We are all for exports, but we are all for people here at home making money off their production. There are some that are really doing very well under this program, and I just wanted to set the record straight. Because if one adds up the gargantuan amounts of money that we are having to use to prop up this system, something is fundamentally wrong with the architecture of the basic programs. So those gentlemen that stood up there who have now left the floor, I wished they were down here. But take a look at the accounts. One of the reasons we are so stretched in this bill is simply because we are having to, on an emergency basis, prop up a system that is sick from coast to coast complicated further by bad weather and disasters. So that Freedom to Farm program has to be revisited quickly, and we need a new farm policy in this country that rewards production, not lack of production.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), one of the most active and insightful members of the authorizing committee from the State of Minnesota, which has weathered such difficulties in the agricultural sector.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, could I ask, what is the remaining time on both sides, please.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), who is, by the way, a very involved member of the authorizing Committee on Agriculture, and we are very pleased that he is down here on an appropriation bill.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is such an able representative of rural America, and certainly all of the agricultural facilities and interests in Beltsville, probably the most important research station in the world.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a very able and distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who is such a hard-working, able member of the subcommittee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time, if the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) would like to call on another speaker so that we are more balanced in our time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a very distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of full committee, for coming to the floor and trying to clarify what is happening here. As my colleagues know, when our bill was sent to the Senate and we were later called to become conferees, though we were appointed as conferees, we never met as conferees. We never had a chance to sit together. We were not even allowed to work our will on the bill, and many House items fell out as the Senate worked its will. We could not represent the interests of this House and our Members. I would just like to state for the record that funding for some important programs like Conservation Technical Assistance under the Natural Resources and Conservation Service that help our farmers apply for necessary programs like Wetlands Reserve, Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program were dropped. Hopefully, we will be able to restore that so we can get people to apply and to meet the deadlines necessary. One cannot do that without field people out there helping farmers across the country. Remediating citrus canker, which we had put in the House bill, at nearly $40 million for tree replacement and compensation to growers, was eliminated for some reason; the funds for APHIS to address Pierce's Disease, that is affecting the grape crop in California; were dropped; funds were also removed for the Inspector General, one part of USDA that brings in money as we arrest thieves around the Nation and those who are cheating and committing fraud in these various programs. Further, money was eliminated for our water and waste water grants. We have got people lined up all over the country applying for USDA utilities programs, unable to be served. Through the conference committee that we were not allowed to participate in, over 28 million more dollars removed from that program. Homeownership loans, resulting in a loss of loan volume of over $296 million, were dropped from the bill. Our mutual and self-help housing grants, assistance to migrant and seasonal farm workers, the replacement of our FDA, Food and Drug Administration, building in Los Angeles--all were dropped out, sometime in the dead of night. We in the House did not have a chance to work our will. Many emergency conservation authorities were removed. I guess I would just say that I will place in the Record a statement that has come to us today from the Clinton administration, the Executive Office of the President and the Office of Management and Budget, that if we do not fix the Supplemental bill, the President's advisors have recommended vetoing this bill. Thus, I am so grateful for the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee standing here today and entering into this colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member. It is absolutely essential that these items be restored.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I do not think I have ever risen in opposition to a rule for an agriculture appropriations measure coming out of our subcommittee, but indeed I must do so this evening, mainly because we have to look at this bill in the broader context of what is happening in rural America. The only chances we have to help are this bill and the related supplemental bill, which was to have had funding in it for agriculture. Unfortunately, the members of our committee have essentially been defanged. We have not been allowed to participate in conference committees occurring on the supplemental bill. This particular bill is $400 million below what was spent in the year of 2000. It is $1.6 billion below what the administration asked for to meet these historic low prices that our farmers are struggling with, the drought problems we are having and the disaster problems. In my part of America, farmers cannot even get tractors into the field because of the water. So the bill is not adequate. We had pinned our hopes on the supplemental. We had proposed to try to level the playing field of the $400 million that is short in this bill compared to last year's spending and put it in the supplemental. This evening we find out that the conferees, who did not include anybody on the committee but essentially four people negotiating, the leaders in both Houses, absolutely did not consult with any of the other conferees that were supposedly appointed. My colleagues might remember that last year the leadership decided that they were going to appoint conferees, and then the conferees met and they were dismissed. Well, this year they appointed conferees and we never met. And so now we face this bill which so underfund our programs. In fact, we will not have enough people in the field, technical assistance for natural resource and conservation service to give farmers to apply for the programs to keep their noses above water. Our rural development programs will be $200 million under. Our pest and disease programs $40 million under for citrus canker for tree replacement in States like Florida, all of the different plum pox problems in Pennsylvania, and so forth. The FDA lab in Los Angeles is canceled in the supplemental; the renovations to the building here in Washington; the money that we need to move people into the new FDA facility in College Park. This bill is absolutely linked to the supplemental, and this evening we learned that that supplemental is completely inadequate and we have absolutely been divested of our authority as duly elected Members of this House. So I would have to say to the Members to vote ``no'' on this rule. It is our only way to send a message to the leadership of this Chamber that the Members need to be involved at the table. I would just urge the membership on both sides of the aisle to restore the powers to the subcommittees. No subcommittee likes to be treated in this way. No committee likes to be treated in this way. Vote ``no'' on this rule and allow us to bring a bill to the floor that reflects the will of the majority of the members of the committee.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their cosponsorship of this very important amendment. I want to also thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their cooperation. Because when this legislation was considered in the full Committee on Appropriations, I offered an amendment to make sure that we did not spend any less this coming year than we did the current year, and the original bill that came to us was about $12 million under what we were spending for this area of renewables and solar. In fact, it was $106 million under the administration's request. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) very willingly tried to work with us and to tick up this account a bit. Certainly in light of rising fuel prices in this country, we really thank the chairman for his cooperation and interest, and I sincerely hope as this bill progresses farther down the appropriations process in our work with the other body we will be able to find additional dollars for this important addition to America's energy security. Every person in this Chamber and every American listening tonight knows that this is the right direction for America, and that in fact America's chief strategic vulnerability now is our energy dependence. To see American diplomats on their knees to the leaders of other countries, oil producing states, asking them to try to take care of us and to increase their production, is not a position America wants to be in at the beginning of this new millennium. We spend over $50 billion a year on imported petroleum products and crude. And when we go and pump gasoline in our tanks, over half of every dollar that we spend goes in the pocket of a leader of business in some other nation, not this one. To put it in perspective, America's farmland and our farmers, our agriculture infrastructure, can produce enough energy to replace half of our Nation's gasoline usage and all of our nuclear power supply. And we can do so without a major impact on food prices. That is how productive agricultural America can be if given this challenge. Imagine taking that $50 billion we pay to someone else and putting it to work here at home for domestic investment in rural America, in terms of jobs created for production, harvesting, storage of biofuel inputs, and industrial growth with the creation of facilities for the conversion of biomass to fuel. What an energy boost, in fact, this would be and an income boost for so many communities across this country. I have been very surprised at how slow we have made progress in this area. Progress has come, but not in as fast a way as we have seen progress, for example, in our space program. So I rise in very strong support of the amendment. This is the right direction for America, the right direction for the future, and I commend both gentlemen.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the able gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I have risen to engage the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations, in a colloquy. As the gentleman and the ranking member knows, I have an ongoing interest in the enlarged use of biomass materials as a source of domestic energy. Serving on the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, I have always been somewhat puzzled that biomass fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel have not become a more substantial energy resource for our country to displace our unwise reliance on imported sources of energy. Mr. Chairman, it appears that we have a win-win-win situation if biomass fuels can provide a domestic energy source to help relieve our dependence on foreign oil, if we maintain it as a renewable resource that will last as long as we can grow crops, and it will provide a new and substantial market for our farmers, especially if linked to on-farm storage of inputs and broadly competitive processing and distribution arrangements. One issue that seems to stand in the way of additional progress in the development of biomass fuels is the reluctance of the Departments of Energy and Agriculture to work together to move biofuels research and development forward. I assume that that lack of coordination is the product of bureaucratic inertia and can be overcome with some well- directed prodding by this Congress. So if the Chairman and ranking member agree, I hope that our two subcommittees and we as leaders in the Congress can work together to find ways to encourage cooperation between the Departments of Agriculture and Energy in the development of biomass fuels. I would suggest we ask the Departments to report back to the committee before we consider next year's appropriation bill on suggested initiatives that can be undertaken to increase the production and use of biofuels, including recommendations for engaging more broadly the U.S. farm sector in the storage, production, processing, and distribution of biofuel inputs and outputs.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with me. I want to again thank the able gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), ranking member, for yielding me this time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank the gentleman very much for his support.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. KAPTUR. That that community will not be eligible for EDA assistance----

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just merely asked if the gentleman could repeat what he said. I could not hear him with the din in the Chamber.

Ms. KAPTUR. I do wish to be heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would just ask the chairman of the subcommittee, then, by what he has said to me in refusing to accept our amendment, is the gentleman saying that if a community, like Salina, Ohio, loses jobs to China, Huffy Bicycle moved to China----

Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support on the amendment and would beg of the chairman inclusion of this amendment in the committee bill. Point of Order

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment that operates under the existing authorization and depends upon funds already in the bill. Essentially, it says that if there is a community that loses its jobs to China, they have a right to be covered under the assistance programs offered by the Economic Development Administration, just as much as any community in America that might lose jobs to Mexico or to Honduras or to Taiwan. Currently all of these programs at the Department of Commerce are available under EDA for assistance to communities that have lost jobs. Unfortunately, when China permanent normal trade relations was passed here a couple of weeks ago, there were no provisions in that bill, unlike NAFTA, for adjustment assistance to communities and individuals who will be harmed by that measure. In fact, the U.S. International Trade Commission, an entity of our own government, estimates that the new agreement with China will eliminate more than 870,000 jobs in our country, more than three- quarters of a million jobs. Communities will be imploded from north to east, south, west, all across this country. The amendment we are proposing operates out of such sums as may be necessary, basically using the existing authority within the bill. It does not set aside funds just for China, but it says, do not forget communities that will be harmed by the loss of jobs to China. I would also remind my colleagues that in the report accompanying the bill, the following is stated: The committee expects the Economic Development Administration to continue its efforts to assist communities impacted by economic dislocations related to all industry downswings and timber industry downturns due to environmental concerns at no less than the current level of effort; in other words, to assist communities that are hurt, regardless of the industry. We certainly expect adverse impacts from the China vote. There will be beneficiaries of that vote, but for those communities that will be hurt, there is absolutely no reason not to allow those communities to be assisted through the Economic Development Administration. If Members come from an area that knows what happened with NAFTA, then they have to support this amendment, because they need to prepare for what is likely to be coming as a result of normalizing relations with China. For the record, let me state that this title includes $361,879,000 for the Economic Development Administration. That is $45 million below the administration's request, but within the committee bill itself there is $10,500,000 that is specifically identified in the report also for trade adjustment assistance. We would hope that for those communities that will lose their jobs to China, that that trade adjustment assistance contained in this measure would also be available to those communities that are impacted, just as it would be if a community loses its jobs to Mexico, as has happened in so many places across the country, or to Taiwan. It does not matter where, but we should not exclude China. One of the most glaring omissions of the China debate here in the Congress was the fact that there is no reporting required of where jobs are moved from and to, there is no eligibility for dislocated workers, and no funds specifically set aside, as we did under NAFTA. Now, unless we pass this amendment, we are going to be saying that we do not give the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration permission within existing authority and existing funds to assist those communities that will be heavily impacted by, as the International Trade Commission says, a loss of over 870,000 jobs to China in the near term. So I think it would be very shortsighted not to pass this amendment. I would beg of the chairman of the subcommittee to give full consideration.