Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. The same to you. I wore my organic cotton tie on your behalf. Thank you very much. This legislation would not be possible without the great working relationship I enjoy with our ranking member Mr. Farr. Again, we don't always agree but we do try to communicate and put together a sound product. I also thank all the staffers who have averaged about 50-60 hours a week since December to make this happen. Matt Smith and Martha Foley with the Minority, and Rochelle Dornatt and Troy Phillips with Ranking Member Farr's office, our majority staff clerk of many years Martin Delgado and his team Tom O'Brien, Betsy Bina, and Andrew Cooper. From my personal office, Allie Thigpen, Michael Donnal, Adam Sullivan, Chris Crawford, Caroline Black, and Mary Carpenter. You might not see them on the House floor, but their fingerprints are all over the bill. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by saying, if this was a serious amendment, if this was a serious proposal--we have had 25 hours of debate--it would have been out on the House floor, and we could have taken a look at it. But let me say this: Very importantly, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that prohibits the CFTC from looking at oil speculation as it respects the supply or the cost of oil. This amendment is not needed because of that alone. But let me also quote the Democrat Commissioner on the CFTC, Michael Dunn, a Democrat member of the CFTC. There has been a suggestion by some that once we set position limits, that's speculative limits, on physical derivatives, that the price we pay will inevitably drop. I believe this is a fallacy. To date, the CFTC staff has been unable to find any reliable economic analysis to support the contention that excessive speculation is affecting the markets we regulate, or that position limits will prevent excessive speculation. The price volatility exists in our markets because of global supply and demand for physical commodities. Now, why are the Democrats trying to get us bogged down in that the price of oil is going up because of speculation? Well, I can tell you. Go back to January 2009, and ask your constituents if they remember paying a 1.83 per gallon. And in that same month, who became President of the United States but President Obama, the Democrat. The change you were asking for, the change we were promised was that gas went from $1.83 per gallon to now $3.80, a 90 percent increase. And the Democrats want us to believe it's because of speculators. You know why it's gone up? Because of more regulation, less permitting, more delays and more lawsuits. Think about this. The President recently went down to Brazil and he told them, hey, we understand you're going to drill offshore. We encourage you to do so. We want to lend you the money, and we want to become your best customers. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I've got news for the President. I've got news for the Democrats. American technology and American engineers do not need to hold second place to Brazil or any other country in the world. We are America. We need to have an all-of-the-above energy policy. We do need to look at solar. We do need to look at ethanol. We do need to look at wind. We need to also look at nuclear and fossil fuels, and we need to do it here in the United States of America. We are Americans. And if you want to bring down the price of gas at the pump, then let's increase our own domestic supply and quit playing games of blaming it on Wall Street. I recommend a ``no'' vote on the motion to reconsider.

Mr. KINGSTON

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. We have had a very difficult time with the Food for Peace program already, and if this helps secure another supporter of the bill, we certainly would work with you on this amendment and support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. As the chairman of Agriculture knows and is fully aware, I wanted to underscore the point that you just made that the ordinary mandatory authorization for this program is $165 million. That has been zeroed out, and the only thing we're doing this year is this $15 million. And so even at the current $15 million level, it's still 150 less than it ordinarily has been.

Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to make a few notes on it. I appreciate my friend for offering it, and I think he's raised some very serious philosophical questions, particularly about Pub.L. 490, the foreign food program. I wanted to point out we have reduced that by 31 percent in this account, but we've also reduced the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Account, as he's well aware, but his amendment would actually increase that 10 times. It's at $11 million, and he would bring that up to $111 million. The highest funding level for that was in FY 2010 at $43 million, and so we have been ratcheting it down using a voucher program but feel that it was overfunded. The Rural Business Program Account right now is about $64 million, so this amendment almost doubles that. It doesn't quite double it. But there again, we have brought that account down from a high of $97 million; and with his amendment, it would go up to $164 million. These two accounts would go to higher levels than they historically had. And in contrast, the PL 480, the foreign food program, is at one of the lower levels that it has been at. So I have to say to my friend that I'm sorry to reluctantly oppose you, but we are going to oppose the amendment at this point. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. I think Dr. Broun has raised a lot of good points in terms of our financial future. In America today, for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. The national debt right now is 95 percent of the GDP. Clearly, we have to make some very difficult choices ahead. And that's why, in this committee mark, we actually have reduced WIC funding already $686 million. Now, these numbers aren't random. WIC participation in 2010 was 9.2 million; in 2011, it's 8.9 million. Our committee mark for FY 2012 contemplates a participation level of 8.3 million. However, if the economy does not improve and the number goes back up, with contingency funds, we have enough money to fund a participation level of over 9 million. But it's very difficult, Mr. Chairman, because, as we said many times during yesterday's debate, the only budget that has actually passed either House is the Ryan budget, and our 302(b) allocation funding level comes from that budget. The President's own budget failed in the Senate 97-0. The Democrat leadership in the Senate is unable to pass a budget. They're not trying to pass a budget. So using the 302(b) allocation which we have, we have come up with these numbers, not done in random, not done with any recklessness at all. We're trying to be very careful to make sure no one falls through the crack. But because this is a delicate card house, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for putting this discussion on the table, because I think that it is important for us to look at the WIC program and make sure we are doing everything as efficiently and effectively as possible and we are putting the money in the right direction. We had a very thorough, about a 6-hour debate about WIC yesterday. It is a delicate card house that we are trying to balance with our committee mark. But I think the more sunshine we have, not just on WIC, but on other Federal feeding programs, I think the better product we are going to come up with. So she and I have had some discussions on this. We are going to continue to have discussions on it. But I wanted to say I think it is a good debate to be having, although I am not supportive of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. Number one, we have actually reduced this account 31 percent. Again, as I have said many times, passing an appropriation bill that is building a card house, there's a delicate balance. I have got my friend, Mr. McGovern, who believes that we've cut too much. I've got my friend, Dr. Broun, who believes we haven't cut enough. And so we're trying to move this legislation. I wanted to talk a little bit about PL-480 and say a couple of things. Number one, there is a national security interest in it. This is not about international charity alone. We do have an interest. America needs to be engaged around the world. When there is a natural disaster or manmade disaster, if we're not there, who will be there? And this is very important. My friend Mr. Dicks is here, former chairman of the HAC-D Committee, and knows that in terms of the national defense, we have soldiers right now as I speak in 60 different countries around the globe. Now, they are engaged for a reason. It's not a job-creation program. They're keeping an eye on national security interests. If you travel in Africa or travel in South America right now, you'll see a new player that was not there 10 years ago, and that is the country of China. China is not necessarily an immediate threat to us, but it is a concern to us. China is rising as a military force and certainly as an economic source, and they are engaged all over the globe. Often our international programs, including food programs, keep us engaged and gives us an opportunity to have some doors open which we would not ordinarily have. America provides 57 percent of the food aid in the world, followed by the EU at 27 percent and Japan at 6 percent. Right now, China is not a major player. The oil-rich Middle East countries certainly aren't major players. But it is about engagement. And it's interesting that we have a balance between developmental aid and emergency aid. Because if there is a Haitian disaster, we're the first on the ground trying to get food to the people. But we need to also be there with developmental aid to make sure that these countries are independent and that these countries do know how to grow their own food and have their own resources. So I just want to emphasize again that this program has been trimmed already 31 percent, and it seems to me the balance that will get this bill over to the Senate so that we can negotiate further on it. We are in many, many different countries around the world. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out some of the things that this program is doing in Pakistan, Haiti, the Sudan, and Afghanistan. And I will submit that for the Record. P.L. 480 Title II History For more than 50 years, the United States Government has played a lead role in meeting emergency humanitarian food needs through P.L. 480 Title II (Title II). Some of the first U.S. food assistance resources assisted the war-devastated economies of Europe. As these economies regained their strength they began to pay for American farm commodities. President Eisenhower signed P.L. 480 Title II into law in 1954 and it was later renamed the ``Food for Peace'' Act. Current Need and Impact of Cuts Currently, overall U.S. funding to WFP feeds on average 35 million people. A cut of Title II to $1,040,198, as marked-up by the House Agricultural Appropriations sub-committee, would mean that 15 million people--primarily women and children-- suffering from hunger as a result of conflict and natural disasters would lose access to life saving food. These cuts would significantly reduce the United States' ability to address instability in volatile countries and decrease its capacity to respond quickly to the needs of hungry people affected by natural disaster or armed conflict. Title II Assists People Affected by Natural Disasters Pakistan In July 2010, floods ravaged Pakistan, affecting millions. WFP was able to reach people quickly and began to distribute food just days after the record monsoon rains began. The first food to reach the affected population was funded by U.S. Food for Peace. The first helicopters that lifted food to remote valleys in Swat and the northern regions were also carrying U.S. food. Within the first month, WFP was able to reach approximately 3 million people and then scaled up very quickly to 7 million. Life-saving support was then followed by early recovery activities which included school feeding and nutrition support. Story from the field: Razia Bibi and her family were badly hit in the floods that devastated Pakistan last summer. Razia lives in a little village called Chandia in central Pakistan. She and her family lived on an embankment for a month last summer as monsoon flooding flattened all the homes in her community. As floodwaters subsided in September, they started to pick up the pieces of their lives. Monthly food rations from WFP have kept them going while they have rebuilt their house and life has slowly returned to normality. Razia and her husband sold their three goats, their last major assets, to rebuild their house using high-quality bricks that would be more resistant in case of another flood. In December 2010, Razia picked up the family's last food ration. Now that her husband is back at work and they have a house, she and her family are able to support themselves. Their six children are back at school and because of food assistance they were able to get back on their feet. Haiti In Haiti, in the immediate aftermath of the January 12th earthquake, WFP began providing assistance within 24 hours and swiftly organized general food distributions. Only six weeks after the quake, WFP assistance, through partners such as World Vision, was reaching more than 4 million people, 35 percent of which was from the U.S. government. In the following months, WFP also put in place safety net interventions--including school feeding and nutrition. Following the large general distribution, school feeding was the quickest safety net intervention to scale up, reaching over 500,000 school children. At the request of the Government, WFP then scaled up to assist 1 million children. In October, a take-home ration was also given to family members to get children back in school, especially those who had dropped out after the earthquake. WFP also launched a blanket supplementary feeding program to all children five years of age and under and pregnant/lactating women. Story from the field: When the earthquake struck Haiti in January of 2010 Cassandre Chery and her family were just leaving their home. A piece of concrete fell and broke her foot but otherwise they were uninjured. Her home, however, was badly damaged. ``It's difficult to find work now,'' said Cassandre who used to be a beautician. Her husband also has trouble finding work. Their two girls, who live with them in a tent in Port-au-Prince, were forced to go hungry some days. But now Cassandre is back to work and she is rebuilding her country with a food for work project with World Vision and WFP. She receives food and cash to work clearing rubble from roads and drainage channels. ``This works means a lot to me,'' she said. ``It has helped me pay school fees and feed my two daughters.'' Story from the field: At Sister Mary Bernadette's primary school in Port-au-Prince, students began gathering after the earthquake, though classes had not yet resumed. Most had lost their homes, and a family member or friend. They came in search of support and in search of something familiar. As plans came together to begin makeshift lessons, WFP started distributing daily meals to Sister Mary Bernadette's students. ``They'd simply be too weak to study if they weren't able to eat something at school,'' she says. ``It's important for them to have a meal here. Most of them come from very poor families.'' Sister Mary Bernadette says that the food ``helps [them] to study and stay focused in class. When they don't eat, they don't hear, they don't listen, they don't see.'' A year after the earthquake, things in her school are improving. During the summer break, crews tore down the damaged building and workers are now putting the final touches to temporary classrooms. The students seem to be recovering too, said the school principal. ``Some of them are still struggling though. When you lose a member of your family, your mother or your father, you just can't forget. But we do our best to help them.'' Title II Assists Those Affected by Conflict and Helps Restore and Maintain Stability in Volatile Regions Sudan WFP assistance in Sudan, reaching 6.7 million people, has been a critical stabilizing factor since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed in 2005. In 2010, nearly half of assistance to WFP in Sudan was generously provided by the U.S. government. This assistance has provided stability throughout the South Sudan referendum process. Readiness, contingency measures and pre-positioning, has allowed WFP to respond quickly to any situation, including the current population displacements in Abyei (an area between south Sudan and Sudan). WFP's strategic engagement for post- referendum South Sudan is vital for ensuring a smooth transition. WFP's engagement will support the restoration of sustainable assets for the communities, infrastructure (feeder roads), safety nets (school feeding, seed protection, nutrition), strategic food reserve, Government capacity in food security analysis, and support to smallholder farmers through purchase-for-progress. Story from the field: Food assistance has played a critical role in southern Sudan over the last few years and has been key in supporting families returning home. Grace Lado, a 25 year old mother of 2, fled fighting in Juba in southern Sudan when she was only 7 years old. When her family decided to move back a WFP food ration made it possible. In spite of the deteriorating security situation, WFP is currently feeding some 530,000 people across southern Sudan. In addition to food assistance WFP is also helping to repair roads and assist farmers across the region so that those the country can get on a path to sustainable growth. Until then, however, these lifesaving food rations are helping people to build a stable and secure foundation in a country that is hopeful for a brighter future. Afghanistan In 2010, the U.S. government supplied 36 percent of the assistance to WFP in Afghanistan, enabling WFP to assist 7 million people (or 25 percent of the population) and, through its strategic engagement, helps deploy an effective system of safety net interventions and build sustainable assets for the communities through food-for-education, food-for-work, and food-for-training. Story from the field: When Taliban forces arrived in their village Jamila's husband lost both his legs during the fighting. Jamila's family was forced to sell their farmland to pay for his treatment and they suddenly found themselves unable to feed their four children. ``I will never forget the day I realized we had nothing to eat,'' Jamila said. Her husband's family refused to provide assistance and told her to marry off her teenage daughters in order to get dowry money. Jamila's husband, frustrated, depressed and hungry, often took his anger out on her. All of that changed, however, when Jamila began a training program with WFP that provided her with a new set of skills while her family received food rations. Now Jamila is able to support her family by selling children's clothes to a local shop. ``Now that I have a skill and am providing for my family, all the members of my family respect me,'' she says. By providing food aid while Jamila received training she was able to stave off hunger while she built a new life for her family. Story from the field: For years the people of Dega Payan had to travel five hours on foot or by donkey to the nearest medical clinic. Travel by car was impossible as there were no roads leading to their remote village in one of Afghanistan's poorest provinces (Badakhshan) which has high level of undernutrition and food insecurity. Now, as a result of a WFP program that employed local villagers to build a road while providing their families with much needed food assistance, a road has been completed connecting Dega Payan to the larger town of Ziraki, where there is a clinic. This has made the village accessible by road and allows local farmers to get their crops to markets more easily and allows traders to bring supplies into the village that were not available before. McGovern-Dole International School Meals Program Background Approximately 2.7 million children receive McGovern/Dole school meals through WFP, which helps them fight short-term hunger, increase their concentration/performance in school, encourages parents to send them to school, and helps girls to get an education. A better educated girl will make more informed choices and will grow up to raise a more food secure family. Promoting girls education is crucial in countries where there are serious gender disparities. Every $50 cut in the program would deny a child access to food for a whole school year. Without a daily meal, many poor children would not attend class with long-term ramifications for the child, the community and the country. Story from the field: In Afghanistan WFP hands out take- home rations of vegetable oil to approximately 600,000 girls (in addition to the on-site meals) as an incentive for the parents to send their girls to school. In a school in Laghman Province, one of the teachers told WFP ``There are more girls coming to school now because of the food. Before I had six classes, now I have twelve.'' In the same region, girls' enrolment increased by 40 percent by end of 2008 from the baseline data 2 years earlier, and attendance rate for girls improved by 30 percent from baseline. Families realize that girls are bringing income by going to school. A girl at the same school queuing for her oil ration said ``We are so happy to get this oil. We are poor and our family is happy with us since we can bring something of value to our homes''. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KINGSTON. I rise in support of the Lummis amendment. I am disappointed that she is planning to withdraw it and that we will not be having a vote on it. We had a vote on it in full committee. It was actually Mr. Moran's amendment that pulled it out. I did not support the gentleman from Virginia's amendment because I believe there is a lot of emotion that goes on when we are dealing with a horse. It still is a private property issue, a personal property issue, and while I do not own horses, I have family members who own horses. I know that you do have to have someplace to move the horse on to when it ages out on you. It is very emotional in America. We look down at other nations that eat horses, but I have eaten horse before. In Kazakhstan I ate horse, and it wasn't bad. But we as Americans, we have an obesity problem, so we can pick and choose what we want to eat and what we don't want to eat, and people feel like, well, we are too good to be eating horses. I understand that, but the rest of the world does eat horses and I think, frankly, that is a different discussion, as my friend from Virginia knows. But I wish we were having a vote on it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON of Georgia

Mr. KINGSTON of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KINGSTON of Georgia. I rise in strong support of the amendment and believe that while it may be an emotional issue--and as my friend from Virginia said and my friend from Indiana said, emotion is good. I think that there can be emotion on both sides. But there's also a lot of logic in the gentlewoman's position, and that's why I'm a strong supporter of it. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.

Mr. KINGSTON

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