SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
75–341PS
2001
THE AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 2001;
RECOGNIZING THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANZUS TREATY'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY, PAYING TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES-AUSTRALIA RELATIONSHIP, AND OTHER ISSUES
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2646 and H. Con. Res. 217
SEPTEMBER 6, 2001
Serial No. 107–37
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JIM DAVIS, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
FRANK RECORD, Senior Professional Staff Member
DANIEL FREEMAN, Counsel/Parliamentarian
LIBERTY DUNN, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
Markup of H. R. 2646, the Agricultural Act of 2001
H.R. 2646
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Amendment to H.R. 2646 offered by the Honorable Doug Bereuter, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska
Amendment to H.R. 2646 offered by the Honorable Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon
Markup of H. Con. Res. 217, Recognizing the historic significance of the fiftieth anniversary of the alliance between Australia and the United States under the ANZUS Treaty, paying tribute to the United States-Australia relationship, reaffirming the importance of economic and security cooperation between the United States and Australia, and welcoming the state visit by Australian Prime Minister John Howard
H. Con. Res. 217
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations: Prepared statement on H.R. 2646
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde: Amendments to H.R. 2646
APPENDIX
The Honorable Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from American Samoa: Prepared statement on H. Con. Res. 217
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York: Prepared statement on H.R. 2646
The Honorable Joseph Crowley, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York: Prepared statement on H.R. 2646
THE AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 2001; RECOGNIZING THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANZUS TREATY'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY, PAYING TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES-AUSTRALIA RELATIONSHIP, AND OTHER ISSUES
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:37 p.m. in Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman HYDE. The meeting will come to order.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill H.R. 2646, the Agricultural Act of 2001, for purposes of markup, and move its favorable recommendation to the House.
[The bill, H.R. 2646, follows:]
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
The Chair yields himself 5 minutes for the purposes of presenting a statement.
We now turn to the consideration of the Farm Security Act of 2001, H.R. 2646, which has been sequentially referred to this Committee for consideration of matters within the Rule X jurisdiction of this Committee. Specifically, matters concerning food aid and agricultural export programs are in the shared jurisdiction of the International Relations Committee.
As my colleagues are well aware, the Agriculture Committee is anxious to bring this farm bill reauthorization to the floor as quickly as possible in September and the Rules Committee is expected to consider the measure next week.
To keep this process moving ahead, we are proceeding with a markup this afternoon of the trade title to the farm bill including our Committee's proposals to streamline and improve our food aid programs, authorize a permanent global school feeding program, and reauthorize a number of agricultural export programs.
Does Mr. Lantos have a statement he would like to make?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
H.R. 2646
We will now turn to the consideration of an the Farm Security Act of 2001, H.R. 2646, which has been sequentially referred to this committee for consideration of matters within the Rule X jurisdiction of this committee. Specifically, matters concerning food aid and agricultural export programs in the shared jurisdiction of the International Relations Committee.
As my colleagues are well aware, the Agriculture Committee is anxious to bring this farm bill reauthorization to the floor as quickly as possible in September and the Rules Committee is expected to consider the measure next week.
To keep this process moving ahead, we are proceeding with a markup this afternoon of the Trade Title to the farm bill including our committee's proposals to streamline and improve our food aid programs, authorize a permanent global school feeding program, and reauthorize a number of agricultural export programs.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. First, I want to commend you for scheduling this very timely markup of the Agriculture Act of 2001.
I also want to commend your staff for their extraordinary cooperation that they demonstrated in drafting this legislation.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Agriculture reported out H.R. 2646 on August the 2nd. Included in that bill are nearly $2 billion in funding for agricultural trade promotion programs and international food aid.
These programs are critical to millions of farm families across America and to millions of needy families across the world. These programs are reauthorized under title III of the farm bill, and are under the clear jurisdiction of this Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that this Committee would be able to hold hearings both on the trade component and the food programs prior to this markup. Unfortunately, the bill is scheduled for floor action next week, and we were not able to gain extra time. It is my hope, however, that we will still seek to hold hearings or briefings on these issues later this fall.
Considering the fact that agricultural exports account for nearly one-fourth of all farm income, it is vital that we continue to support our trade promotion programs. Our amendment does that by doubling assistance for market assistance programs as well as providing small increases for other key trade programs.
But we also think that the review of the effectiveness and impact of these programs is long overdue. The Hyde-Lantos amendments to title III address this by requiring the Department of Agriculture to evaluate and to report to Congress on these programs and to do a comprehensive trade policy review.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our amendment also seeks to update the authorities under which the Department of Agriculture and AID operate their food aid programs. Committee staff has worked diligently with private voluntary organizations, the agribusinesses groups and other members of the food aid coalition, as well as with the Administration, to develop a package of reforms that would update and modernize the statutes pertaining to overseas food assistance.
Our goal was to provide the private voluntary organization community with a flexible, reliable resource for meeting the needs of poor and hungry communities around the world, while at the same time enhancing the Administration's ability to manage effectively our resources.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am most pleased that we have been able to include two new but very important provisions. This amendment would permanently authorize the global food for education initiative launched by my two very good friends, former Senator Bob Dole and Ambassador George McGovern. I was a happy cosponsor of H.R. 1700, introduced by our colleague, Congressman McGovern, and I am glad that we have been able to include it in this amendment.
The second provision is the Farmers for Africa and the Caribbean Initiative which was first introduced by our colleague, Congresswoman Clayton, as H.R. 1894. I know that many Members of this Committee were cosponsors of that legislation. I am pleased that we were able to include it as well.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that these programs epitomize the true American spirit and the values we hold dear. Through these programs, we are able to take the bounty of our lands and share it with the needy and the hungry around the globe. At the same time, we are able to sustain the family farms and help producers and growers expand their markets.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is no wonder that these programs enjoy widespread support, and I hope that all of our colleagues will support the legislation and I thank you for your kindness in yielding to me.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
With the leave of the Committee, I would like to take leave of discussion of the bill that we are discussing and take up H. Con. Res. 217 very briefly. This resolution, H. Con. Res. 217, commemorates the 50th anniversary of the ANZUS Treaty between Australia and the United States and welcomes the state visit by Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
Without objection, the Chairman is directed to obtain consideration on the suspension calendar of H. Con. Res. 217 which all the Members have before them.
[The concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 217, follows:]
75341a.eps
090501.AAC
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
090501.AAD
090501.AAE
090501.AAF
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support your suggestion and I want to commend you for a singularly well-timed and productive visit to Australia.
Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. Yes, I will yield.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bereuter.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Lantos, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to commend the Chairman and Mr. Lantos, Mr. Leach, Mr. Faleomavaega and others, and say that this has been one of the most successful alliances at least in terms of Australia and the United States for a period of time.
We have a rather extraordinary relationship with Australia. They have performed very admirably recently on behalf of the whole world community in what they did in East Timor. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister will be visiting us next week, the bonds between Australia and Americans are very strong, and the ANZUS alliance has been part of the reason for that.
I think this legislation is an outstanding effort, and I thank the Chairman and Mr. Lantos for their initiative and for the timing.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. On the issue of H.R. 2646, Mr. Brown seeks recognition.
Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chairman for bringing this issue before the Committee. We all obviously support our Nation's family farms. Congress has a clear responsibility to support agriculture in exporting our food products across the globe, but first the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must take greater responsibility in its export estimates. In repeated debates on trade in this body, USDA's overinflated data have misled many in Congress to believe the great gains in agriculture exports were just over the horizon. As a result, these statistics have too often convinced Members in strong agriculture districts to support trade agreements that have only led to greater trade deficits.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During last year's debate on permanent trade relations with China, the Department of Agriculture released encouraging and wildly optimistic projections for U.S. agriculture exports to China. USDA estimated that China would have only 13.7 million metric tons of wheat in commercial storage before the start of this year's harvest. China, USDA assured us, would need our wheat. Under that assumption, U.S. agricultural groups lobbied hard for China's admission to the WTO. Members of Congress were led to believe there was a robust export market for U.S. wheat. In the end, Congress passed PNTR.
However, in June of this year, surprise, USDA informed us that China would actually not have 13.7 million metric tons of wheat in storage but 54.2 million metric tons of wheat in storage. That difference, simply put, is equal to all the wheat produced in one season in America's Great Plains.
Now that we know the truth, where does that leave the millions of American farmers who believed that PNTR would significantly lift U.S. farm exports? Unfortunately, PNTR was not the only trade debate colored by highly questionable USDA projections. USDA has projected steadily increasing wheat exports in recent years, but over the same period wheat exports have actually fallen. In 1970, USDA estimated that Europe would buy 90 million bushels of corn over the next 10 years. U.S. Corn sales, in reality, last year were 1 million bushels.
Each year as Congress sets our Nation's trade agenda, USDA export estimates give many Members hope that unfettered trade, so-called free trade, will solve all of our Nation's agriculture problems. That is a false hope. Each year the Nation's agriculture exports fall far short of inflated expectation.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Each year Members of Congress are sold on trade deals, in large part in line with USDA estimates, sold on trade deals that do not fulfill their promises. As Fast Track, as trade promotion authority comes before this House, if past behavior is any indication, we will hear wild predictions and unsubstantiated figures about the amount of food that the world will buy from American farmers.
The Department of Agriculture must be held accountable for their error in predictions. The Agency must take responsibility for providing more reliable projections so that Congress knows the truth when considering future trade agreements. If USDA can't meet this expectation, if their behavior continues, if they continue to come to this Congress with wild estimates and unsubstantiated export predictions and figures, it is incumbent upon Congress to reject those projections and question any proposal that depends on them.
I thank the Chairman.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague and commend him for his very persuasive statement. Let me just add that agriculture is not the only culprit. Year after year, we have these fantastically exaggerated notions of the Chinese market which never seem to materialize. And I think the gentleman has served the Committee well with his timely and appropriate intervention. I thank the Chairman.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman.
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are proud of the bill that you and Mr. Lantos have brought before our Committee today. This is truly a balanced effort that makes much-needed reforms in programs that address our worldwide hunger problems, providing for a robust trade promotion budget, and at the same time makes other important changes in the programs.
I am particularly gratified that you have included as section 312 of your amendment the McGovern-Dole food for education and child nutrition program which was introduced in substance as H.R. 1700 and of which I was pleased to be a cosponsor.
The American people respond each and every year to the humanitarian imperative of feeding starving people around the world. We are grateful to our farmers for producing the bounty which allows us to share with others, and to the American people for supporting those of us who make the decision that these acts are appropriate use of their taxpayer dollars.
I have explored offering an amendment to this bill which would have addressed another humanitarian issue, the export of fighting birds from the United States to foreign countries, a despicable trade allowed by a loophole in our current law. Regrettably, I am informed that it cannot be addressed in this particular forum, due to parliamentary reasons, but I hope I can support an amendment to accomplish that goal at some appropriate time. I thank the Chairman for yielding.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very tempted to respond in great detail to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Brown, but I will refrain from that because I have other comments. I will just say that the gentleman is right about the very faulty projections about wheat stocks in China, but the fact remains that American agricultural exports are a billion dollars more than in the previous year. There was never any prospect for selling much wheat to China in the first place, except for hard red wheat from the gentleman from Oregon's part of the country. The kind of wheat grown in the Northwest is really the only major export of wheat, but our productive capability and opportunities lie in soybeans, processed meat, and, sporadically, feed grain.
I did want to address three points with respect to the legislation before us and to say to the Chairman and to the other Members that it is this type of issue that is one of two that causes a wide variety of my constituents to think it is worthwhile to serve on the International Relations Committee. I ask for a little indulgence to speak about the importance of this legislation today and an amendment I will later offer.
And I wanted to address three specific points and one is just to provide some legislative record here. But first, to commend the Chairman, with the support of the Ranking Minority Member, for exercising our jurisdiction on this important legislation. Mr. Hyde, Mr. Lantos, my hats are off to you for taking the time, even though we had, unavoidably, very short notice.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The first point, the international food for education and child nutrition program, the one that is often associated with former Senators McGovern and Dole, and, of course as already spoken to, is, I think, a wonderful initiative. Currently, a pilot program estimated to reach 9 million children operates in 38 countries. Just as the pilot program does, the discretionary international program outlined in this bill will support school feeding and maternal development programs that provide nutritious meals to young children and mothers, and incentives to go to school and stay in school.
And I would remind the skeptics that the U.S. has been implementing a massive school feeding program for years, not on this scale. I think it is appropriate we expand these programs because they directly impact malnourished mothers, preschool and school-aged children, particularly girls.
Secondly, very briefly—and I would ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks and go on to the second point if that is okay, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Without objection.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the farmers for Africa and Caribbean Basin program, Mr. Lantos is exactly right for commending our colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Mrs. Clayton, for building upon the current Farmer-to-Farmer program. Mrs. Clayton came to me and worked with me on this for some period of time, because I was the author of the original Farmer-to-Farmer funding legislation.
After traveling in Central America in the 1980s, I observed that farmers were struggling with the new land reform progress, particularly in El Salvador, to produce enough food for their families in their new cooperatives. They did not have the technical expertise to use their resources. I decided that one solution would be to have the constituents in my agriculture-based district help their counterparts in developing countries on very specific production and technical issues.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When I returned to Capitol Hill, I was amazed to find that the program had already been authorized for many years but never funded. In 1985, after working with Peter McPherson and his predecessor in AID, we started the Farmer-to-Farmer program which gave a fraction of 1 percent of the Food for Peace program directed to the Farmer-to-Farmer program. It has expanded dramatically.
What Mrs. Clayton does is refine it and apply it to the African and Caribbean Basin regions; and, by the way, our prototype experiments were in the Caribbean Basin. I think this is really worthy of note here today. I commend her for her effort, and I am glad it is in the bill.
Finally, the third point, section 310 of this bill, if I could call the Chairman and Ranking Members's attention to it, has caused some concern in commodity groups in my district as well as nationally. It is the authority to charge fees. The Secretary of Agriculture would, subject to subsection (c) above, charge and retain a fee to cover the cost for providing persons, other than an agency of the U.S. Government, with commercial services performed abroad on matters within the authority of the USDA through the Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) or a successor agency.
Now, I think that discretion ought to be given there and that we recover some of those costs, but I would hope that as we pass this—and I look for some comment from the Chairman and the Ranking Member—that this is not regarded as a mandate but an opportunity where it is appropriate for fees to be charged.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would wonder if the Chairman and Ranking Member would want to comment on that subject, and I would hope that they would. Mr. Lantos, I yield to you, if you wish.
Mr. LANTOS. Well, this is only an authority, if I am not mistaken. It is not a requirement.
Mr. BEREUTER. That is correct as I read it. That is your understanding as well?
Mr. LANTOS. That is my understanding as well.
Chairman HYDE. I am told, Mr. Bereuter, that it is discretionary for the Secretary. It is not a mandate.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the Chairman. And I read it the same way. But I wanted to offer this assurance and get some legislative record on it, and I thank the gentlemen, both of you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Nick Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have the privilege of serving both on the standing Committee on Agriculture as well as this Committee. And I would hope that we keep in mind as we make these possible changes, the plight of American agriculture.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the amendments takes funds from the market access program for more spending in other areas. It would take $20 million out of the market access program, which has become pretty vital in our export trade efforts.
Another amendment would eliminate technical assistance for specialty crops. Totally eliminating that program to come up with another $3 million for other programs merits some discussion.
And following up on the potential tax that the Secretary might impose on exports, in the short review period, farm producer groups from my State and across the country have strongly opposed this section 310, which does simply provide the Secretary with the authority to charge a tax or a fee for services provided to exporters. But the language is somewhat vague on how this would be implemented. And, though discretionary, it leaves the potential there to shortchange the USDA in other areas by saying, ''Look, you could still charge a tax and recover some of that money.''
The effort of the USDA and the Foreign Agricultural Service in our export promotion efforts is not to help business or industry as much as it is to help expand outlets for agricultural trade in this country.
Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield? I am very much a supporter of the Market Access Program (MAP) as well. My understanding is that the authorization currently is about $90 million. It is boosted to $200 million by the Agriculture Committee. We put it at $180 million so we double the current authorization, but then the other 20 could be used for other kinds of programs. My understanding is the Ag Committee originally had agreed to $180 million but boosted it, by amendment, to $200 million.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While the gentleman is right that we are moving potentially $20 million to another kind of activity, very beneficial we would hope, still we are in this Committee doubling the current authorization.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. I appreciate that. It is a program that agriculture in this country is becoming more dependent on as we compete with other countries that subsidize their exports as well as put tariff embargoes on our products that go into their countries.
Let me conclude by saying that section 311 calls for goals in the Department of Agriculture for eliminating export subsidies and other measures that distort agricultural trade in order to reduce levels of protection and foster market growth. Fostering market growth is certainly good, but as this country faces the dilemma of having our farmers in agriculture compete with farmers in other countries who are now subsidized. For example, Europe subsidizes their farmers five times the level that we subsidize our farmers. And they are very aggressive in protecting their ag industry. That includes increasing export subsidies on their products to take what would otherwise be our markets.
And let me just conclude, Mr. Chairman, that we should consider the effects of these different amendments on our farmers in the midst of the predicament that American agriculture now faces. That predicament is the lowest commodity prices in 20 years in many of the commodities that we produce in this country.
And so we need to very carefully debate and consider the amendments as we move toward expanding our help for other countries in some of these areas.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chair. I want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from Nebraska for the clarification regarding the funding for the market assistance program.
I represent an area of the country that is not normally associated with farming, with agriculture. However, in the area of Cape Cod and the southern shore of Boston, we are one of the leading producers of cranberries. We have received numerous calls in the past several days regarding some of these particular provisions. And, again, my understanding was reinforced regarding the history of the authorization for the market assistance program.
However, the gentleman from Michigan indicated that the language—the technical assistance language for specialty crops—and cranberries is a specialty crop—was deleted. Well, it is my understanding that in section 315 of Hyde-Lantos, that this is exactly the same language and funding that was approved in the Agriculture Committee. Maybe the Chair or Mr. Smith could clarify, because I am concerned about that.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Will the gentleman yield? It was just presented to me where the language was reinserted on page 28 of the amendment. So thank you for the clarification.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank you. And with that, I yield back and I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member. I want to reassure anyone who is associated with the cranberry growers of Cape Cod in the audience that all is well.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Flake of Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. So we do not go through this without any dissenting voice on this, it seems that we are proceeding in a vacuum. We have been told that we are going to face a budget deficit in terms of a surplus beyond Social Security and Medicare, and yet we are increasing authorization here, sometimes twofold or 10 percent here or 20 percent there, in virtually every program. And I would suggest that we are either posturing, if we assume well let's leave it to the appropriators not to appropriate it, or we are being irresponsible.
These increases, I do not know how in the world we can warrant them at this stage or any stage, frankly, but in particular now when we posture all day long about the need to protect Social Security and Medicare, and yet we authorize and authorize and authorize and authorize beyond our means. And for that reason, I will oppose the amendments.
Chairman HYDE. I have a series of amendments at the desk that I ask unanimous consent be considered en bloc, and considered as read. The Clerk will read.
Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 2646, Hyde amendment——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, further reading of the amendments is dispensed with, and without objection they will be considered en bloc, as I said before.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information referred to follows:]
Chairman HYDE. To fulfill our jurisdictional responsibilities in the areas of food aid and agricultural export promotion policy, I lay before the Committee a series of amendments en bloc which substitute for the trade and food aid title to the Farm Security Act of 2001, H.R. 2646, a measure which will be considered next week by the Rules Committee.
I would note to my colleagues, this Committee also took an active role in the consideration of the 1990 and 1996 farm bill reauthorizations which contain many of the same important export-oriented programs administered by the Agency for International Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I would like to thank the Members of the Committee for their forbearance in attending this markup scheduled so quickly upon our return from the August recess. Our Committee had little choice in the matter in so far as the House Leadership has decided to bring this comprehensive measure to the House floor in the very near future and the Rules Committee has scheduled to take it up next week.
I would particularly like to thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, for his usual excellent cooperation and support in putting together this bipartisan amendment which includes a number of important policy reforms benefitting a broad coalition of private voluntary groups and commodity-based organizations who are on the front lines of international feeding and development programs abroad.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Due to the very fast pace of the Agriculture Committee in marking up this measure so it could be brought to the House floor before the end of the fiscal year, some of these reform measures, together with a permanent authority for a global school feeding program, were purposely set aside by Chairman Combest in the expectation they would be considered by our Committee.
The respective staffs of our two Committees will continue to work toward the goal of producing a mutually acceptable trade title prior to the House consideration of the Farm Security Act of 2001.
The measure before us this afternoon, which would reauthorize all AID and USDA-related programs through 2007, includes vitally important changes in the way international food assistance programs are delivered on the ground improving the flexibility of the private voluntary groups in carrying them out, while preserving the monitoring and oversight functions of the Agency for International Development and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In addition, the Committee is proposing some funding increases and modest reporting requirements for several key agricultural export promotion programs which will expand market access and open new markets for U.S. agricultural exports.
I know that many of my colleagues are already well aware that close to one-third of our farm and food system is geared toward serving these overseas markets and U.S. agriculture is one of the few sectors that consistently enjoys a trade surplus.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The ability to export agricultural products and food aid remains fundamental to the well-being of rural America, and I know that the Members of this Committee do not need to be reminded that we still live in a world marked by high foreign trade barriers and by export subsidies of our trading competitors who over the past 5 years consistently spend 4 times the resources we commit to market development activities.
The nine amendments to title IV are minor and/or technical to clarify the meaning of the language, and I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment before the Committee.
I would now like to turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, to see if he has an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 2646
To fulfill our jurisdictional responsibilities in the areas of food aid and agricultural export promotion policy, I lay before the committee a series of en bloc amendments which substitute for the trade and food aid title to the Farm Security Act of 2001, H.R. 2646, a measure which will be considered next week by the Rules Committee.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would note to my colleagues that this committee also took an active role in the consideration of the 1990 and 1996 farm bill reauthorizations which contained many of the same important export-oriented programs administered by the Agency for International Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I would like to thank the members of the Committee for their forbearance in attending this markup scheduled so quickly upon our return from the August recess. Our Committee had little choice in the matter in so far the House Leadership has decided to bring this comprehensive measure to the House floor in the very near future and the Rules Committee is scheduled to take it up early next week.
I would particularly like to thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, for his cooperation and support in putting together this bipartisan amendment which includes a number of important policy reforms benefitting a broad coalition of private voluntary groups and commodity-based organizations who are on the front lines of international feeding and development programs abroad.
Due to very fast pace of the Agriculture Committee in marking up this measure so it could be brought to the House before the end of the fiscal year, some of these reform measures, together with a permanent authority for a global school feeding program, were purposely set aside by Chairman Combest in the expectation that they would be considered by this committee.
The respective staffs of our two committees will continue to work together toward the goal of producing a mutually acceptable trade title prior to the House consideration of the Farm Security Act of 2001.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The measure before us this afternoon, which would reauthorize all AID and USDA-related programs through 2007, includes vitally important changes in the way international food assistance programs are delivered on the ground improving the flexibility of the private voluntary groups in carrying them out, while preserving the monitoring and oversight functions of the Agency for International Development and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In addition, the Committee is proposing some funding increases and modest reporting requirements for several key agricultural export promotion programs which will expand market access and open new markets for U.S. agricultural exports.
I know that many of my colleagues are already well aware that close to one third of our farm and food system is geared toward serving these overseas markets and U.S. agriculture is one of the few sectors that consistently enjoys a trade surplus.
The ability to export agricultural products and food aid remains fundamental to the well being of rural America, and I know that the members of this committee do not need to be reminded that we still live in a world marked by high foreign trade barriers and by export subsidies of our trading competitors who over the past five years consistently spend four times the resources we commit to market development activities.
The 9 amendments to Title IV are minor and/or technical to clarify the meaning of the language.
I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment before the committee, and I would now like to turn to the Ranking Member to see if he has an opening statement.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANTOS. I concur with your statement, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Bereuter, do you have an amendment?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I do. Have you acted on your amendments en bloc?
Chairman HYDE. It is pending.
Mr. BEREUTER. And do you desire that we should make it to the en bloc?
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman HYDE. The Clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter. Strike section——
Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the further reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information referred to follows:]
75341b.eps
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Today I am offering an amendment retaining the current requirement that, at a minimum, 75 percent of the goods distributed through the Food for Peace program, or the P.L. 480 program, be value-added goods, including processed, fortified, and bagged commodities.
I think it is important to remember why the P.L. 480 program has a strong political base. If we move too far away from that, you lose support of the people like my predecessors and myself and my colleagues from the agriculture States and the constituencies we represent.
The U.S. food aid program includes Food for Peace and the others which we are reviewing today. They are humanitarian relief programs, initially constructed with the intent to directly distribute safe, nutritious food to malnourished and undernourished people in developing countries. Increasingly, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has shifted its food aid focus from the direct distribution of food toward the monetization of bulk commodities in developing countries. The money generated through monetization is then used for in-country development projects. To a point, that is a very good idea.
While monetization programs play an important role which direct distribution of food cannot, I believe it is important to stay close to the initial intent of the food aid legislation, and I believe that the maintenance of the 75 percent value-added product minimum helps private voluntary organizations (PVOs) completing food aid programs to meet the original intent for the following reasons. First, value-added products contain nutrients that are not readily available in developing countries, thus attaining the goal of providing healthy, nutritious food to the malnourished and undernourished.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, value-added goods can be distributed more efficiently than bulk commodities. There are positive features to what is referred to as monetization, but it can be a cumbersome and expensive process, thus diluting the minimum funding that we devote to these important programs.
Third, the distribution of value-added products as opposed to the monetization of bulk commodities further bolsters the U.S. argument that food aid programs are truly humanitarian relief programs, not just dumping grounds for excess bulk commodities like some of our trade competitors argue, like the European Union (EU).
Mr. Chairman, I have toured a milling facility in my district which produces corn-soy blends frequently used in these projects, and convey to you and the other Members, the company and its employees are excited to play a role in meeting the needs of their hungry neighbors across the world. In fact, that mill provided the largest single part of the Ethiopian relief program assistance.
As a result of that, many Americans feel ownership of food aid programs and, in a small but integral way, of U.S. foreign policy, an opportunity we provide our constituents far too infrequently.
The Agri-PVO Working Group comprised of producers, manufacturers, trade associations and private voluntary organizations—in other words, the people most actively involved in the implementation of food aid programs—support the current language in law, the 75 percent value-added product minimum.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, because the USAID Administrator has waiver authority, we are doing about 65 percent, not 75 percent. And I think it is appropriate that the Administrator continue to have that waiver authority, as he does under existing law, and I do not tamper with that.
But I would ask my colleagues to support and sustain the existing law at this point and not move from 75 percent to 50 percent or to 65 percent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Is there further discussion?
If not, the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Blumenauer is recognized for an amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do commend the Chairman and the Ranking Member for the expeditious way that we have moved forward. I think we are making it a better bill. I would like the Committee's indulgence to make one slight additional improvement.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am offering a second-degree amendment that would strike the waiver included in the bill that would permit broad leaf tobacco into the market access program funding.
Chairman HYDE. The Clerk will the designate the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer: Strike section 301(b) of the amendment and redesignate the subsequent subsection accordingly.
[The information referred to follows:]
090401.AAB
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This Committee has appropriately directed its attention to issues of worldwide health.
My colleague from California and others in the Committee are deeply concerned, for example, with the spread of HIV around the world and the United States' leadership in trying to help correct this serious health problem.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Well, a leading cause of death worldwide, comparable to HIV, is death from tobacco-related illness.
I am deeply concerned that we have any change in existing law that would provide Federal funding to promote tobacco leaf sales overseas. We know in this Committee that over a third of a million Americans die of lung disease every year; the third largest cause of death, 1 in 7.
Additionally we know that there are more than 25 million Americans living with chronic lung disease and that tobacco use is the leading cause of that lung disease.
But the impact of tobacco-related disease is not limited to the United States. Tobacco is estimated to account for over 3 million annual deaths worldwide in 1990, rising to over 4 million deaths 2 years ago. It is estimated that tobacco-attributable deaths will rise to 8.4 million by the year 2020 and reach 10 million shortly thereafter.
According to the World Health Organization, while tobacco use is declining in many developed countries, it is rapidly increasing in developing countries.
Now, I am not going to bore this Committee with what is happening, for example, in China, where it estimated that almost 15 percent of deaths are now attributable to tobacco.
I just think it is important for us to take a step back and be consistent. This Committee is appropriately adding its voice to leadership in Congress about how the United States deals with international health crises. Given the fact that a preventable source of death worldwide is attributable to tobacco and is equal to HIV/AIDS deaths, I think we ought to match our commitment in this arena by keeping the existing prohibition on market access subsidy for the sale of tobacco. I yield back the balance of my time.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to express my strong support for the amendment of my friend from Oregon by reestablishing the longstanding prohibition on using Federal money to finance the export of tobacco.
It is my firm belief that U.S. agricultural and export promotion programs should remain a strong instrument for good, both helping to alleviate suffering and want around the world, and also helping to support the industry and hard work of American farmers. These programs should not be used to promote products that have been scientifically proven to cause a host of serious health and social ills.
Cigarettes and tobacco, Mr. Chairman, are clearly major contributors to the high rates of lung cancer, emphysema, asthma, and many other respiratory diseases that continue to plague the United States and many other countries. It would be immoral and utterly irresponsible for us to actively promote the exportation of products that cause such diseases to other parts of the world.
I therefore strongly support the amendment of my colleague from Oregon, and urge all of my colleagues to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cantor.
Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In all deference to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I speak in opposition to the amendment.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Whether or not one is supportive of the concept of the market access program, I think my good friend from the Northwest talked about consistency. The last time I looked, tobacco is a legal product. I understand his concerns as well as that of the gentleman from California of the health risks associated with the product. But the fact is it is legal. What it means in my home State are about nearly 6,000 tobacco farms and close to 60,000 acres of tobacco. That means real people, real people relying on revenue, providing their families with livelihood, with food, and with the ability to survive and contribute to their community.
Frankly, to exclude tobacco from the Market Access Program essentially eliminates the opportunity for farmers in my home State to have the same opportunity as those who farm soybeans and other products that are presently enjoyed by those farmers.
So, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge defeat of the amendment, because it is unfair to our farmers and it is anticompetitive, and frankly to single out tobacco and tobacco farmers and their families is the wrong way to go. In my State it is about protecting the livelihood of farmers, and perhaps affecting negatively their ability to provide for their young children and for their ability to provide a livelihood.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
Mr. FLAKE. I rise in support of the amendment, but I would encourage my colleague, Mr. Blumenauer, to include a lot of other things like barley, oats, corn, wheat, soybeans, cranberries, apples, sugar, turnips, zucchini squash, broccoli.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If we start playing favorites with what are legal products, then we ought to realize how silly the market access programs are and where we as a government take a position on what ought to be exported and what shouldn't. That is why we shouldn't be involved in these programs.
Therefore, I will support the amendment, maybe for different reasons. Thanks.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Hoeffel of Pennsylvania.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to support the amendment, and to respond to my friend from Virginia, that the issue really is not the economic health of the farm community, although I understand why he is so concerned about it.
This tobacco program has been excluded from the MAP program, the Market Access Program, for 8 years. It is not like we are singling them out today for some new punishment. Tobacco has not be included in market access for 8 years. The Agriculture Committee is proposing to change the law, and Mr. Blumenauer wants to keep the law as is.
I view it not as an economic issue, but as a health issue, as Mr. Blumenauer has eloquently said, and I support his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Burr.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BURR. I thank the Chairman. My only regret is that I haven't been here for the whole debate, because I find in this town everybody is for the farmers until it is time for a vote.
The health community said, as the President's commission reported, we found that this should happen, but we are for the farm community. We don't want the livelihood of farmers to be hurt. There is a reason that the ag bill put it back in, was because we have had a significant change since we did an ag bill, Mr. Chairman.
The industry went and settled with States. It agreed to some things that 20 years ago the tobacco industry wouldn't agree to. Every State profited from the money in the settlement. Some of them chose to pump it into health care for children, some of them chose to build sidewalks with it.
You know it is a shame that they didn't all pump it into programs that promoted education, that supported health care. But, you know, the next thing we are going to do is start duplicating our health care system to make sure that the countries have health care, versus to make sure that our agricultural products aren't marketed in the same way.
I know that my good friend pointed out a 15 percent death rate in China. I am not sure if that is accurate, but I believe it. We don't currently sell any raw tobacco leaf to China. This is not an issue today, ladies and gentlemen, about whether we market cigarettes, or how they are marketed. It is a question of that small percentage of the agricultural community that still exists in this country that happens to grow tobacco, primarily because it is the only thing on their small plots of land that they can make their livelihood on.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is whether we are going to extend to them the same opportunity that we extend to every other agricultural product. I know if any of you went home, if your products were Christmas trees, like they are for me, or hazelnuts or they are avocados or they are something that is a small part of the business versus corn or barley or potatoes, your farmers would be outraged if we excluded them. You, Mr. Flake, just alluded to some.
The only thing we are asking for is treat us the same as everybody else. It is an agricultural product. Until this Congress or this country outlaws it, then let farmers be treated the same from farm to farm to farm.
We are not going to cut off the flow of tobacco to China whether they grow their own, which is 100 percent of the market today, whether they get it from Zimbabwe, which is a developing country, and my gosh, we don't want to do anything to hurt their developing process, or whether they get if from Brazil, which is currently growing probably as much, if not more, than we are in the United States.
But understand that with the actions that we have taken domestically, with what the companies have done on their own, with the educational trend that we have had in this country as we have reduced the usage of tobacco products, the only way that those farmers in these communities can in fact have a livelihood is if they participate in an international market that is there whether we are or not.
So our ability to extend the same agricultural possibilities to a tobacco farmer that we extend to any other farmer is only their ability to continue the livelihood that they have come to know.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me assure all of you that as that dies, and it will, I am convinced of it, no matter how hard we try, that part of life as we know it in the South won't exist. So will communities that we represent. So will the hospitals that exist today, that won't exist tomorrow. They were built with tobacco money. So will the schools, and consequently so will the socioeconomic level of the people who live there.
Don't do it because of something we do. Do it because the market conditions change. But don't do anything to pile onto an industry that is already on a decline.
I am confident that these people deserve to be part of the program. The Agriculture Committee on a voice vote said a lot has changed in the 5 years since we did this bill. The industry has done a tremendous amount. We shouldn't exclude them from everything that we extend to our agricultural community to sell internationally. We want them included now, because that in fact could be the difference between profit and loss to them.
I would urge my colleagues, regardless of what you think about tobacco, what you think about cigarettes, this is an issue of whether we are going to treat all farmers the same way, equitably, and I would encourage you to be against the amendment and to support the initiative to have this included under the farm bill.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence.
Chairman HYDE. The question occurs on the Blumenauer amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Clerk will call the vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.
Mr. Gilman: Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes aye.
Mr. Leach.
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach votes aye.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
[no response.]
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Mr. Houghton.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr.
Mr. BURR. No.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr votes no.
Mr. Cooksey.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul.
Mr. PAUL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Paul votes yes.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Pitts.
Mr. PITTS. Yes.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pitts votes yes.
Mr. Issa.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor.
Mr. CANTOR. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cantor votes no.
Mr. Flake.
Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Flake votes yes.
Mr. Kerns.
Mr. KERNS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kerns votes no.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mrs. Davis votes aye.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Ms. McKinney.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. HILLIARD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes no.
Mr. Sherman.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel.
Mr. ENGEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Engel votes yes.
Mr. Delahunt.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks.
Mr. MEEKS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes yes.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Lee.
Ms. LEE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes.
Mr. Crowley.
Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes.
Mr. Hoeffel.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes.
Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blumenauer votes yes.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Berkley.
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Berkley votes yes.
Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mrs. Napolitano votes yes.
Mr. Schiff.
Mr. SCHIFF. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Schiff votes yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Watson.
[no response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
Chairman HYDE. Yes.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes yes.
Mr. Wexler.
Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Chris Smith, has he recorded?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Issa.
Mr. ISSA. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Issa votes yes.
Chairman HYDE. Has Mr. Engel voted? You can only vote once.
Have all voted who wish? The Clerk will call the roll, I mean will announce the vote.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Ackerman has entered the premises. I know that he was listening down the hall. How are you recorded?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I shall be recorded as a yes.
Chairman HYDE. Now the Clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were 24 ayes and 7 nos.
Chairman HYDE. And the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on the Hyde amendment, as amended. The gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman, may I make an inquiry as to intent or cost on a section that was changed?
My question would be on page 14, under line 19, under (A): The child nutrition program provisions. We call, on line 23, for the expansion of the program. And then we suggest that the Agricultural Commodity Credit Corporation shall pay the cost of the purchase of these products.
The Agriculture Credit Corporation Fund, for example, shall be used for paying the transportation costs, on page 15, line 21.
And on page 16, the Commodity Credit Corporation Fund shall be used to pay the cost of activities conducted in recipient countries by nonprofit voluntary organizations. This could supplement the tremendous contribution of these voluntary organizations that are helping distribute the food in these other countries.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Is it the intent that the Commodity Credit Corporation pay for all of those on page 16, (B), starting on line 4, and again, the directions that the CCC Fund shall be provided to meet the administrative expenses of private voluntary organizations?
It seems that has the potential to cost a great deal. Can somebody help me clarify the increased potential cost?
Chairman HYDE. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has scored this at zero.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Well, I don't understand the CBO after serving 8 years on the Budget Committee, but I appreciate that scoring.
Chairman HYDE. All right. The question—if I said HBO, you would know what I was talking about.
The question occurs on the Hyde amendment, as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The question occurs on the motion to report the bill, H.R. 2646, favorably, as amended. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it, and the motion to report favorably is adopted.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House Rule XXII. Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes and the Chair expresses his gratitude to the Members for being here today and making a contribution.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As the Chair, I demand 2 days to file additional views, a mere technicality, but necessary.
This Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Record
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
H. CON. RES. 217
Mr. Chairman:
I rise in strong support of the resolution before the committee. I am honored to join you and the Ranking Democratic Member, Mr. Lantos, and the Chairman of the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Leach, in jointly introducing this measure which honors the close friendship and extraordinarily deep relationship between Australia and the United States.
This month marks the 50th anniversary of our alliance with Australia under the ANZUS Treaty, and the resolution before us properly recognizes that this vital security relationship has made historic and significant contributions to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Even before the Treaty was signed in 1951, however, Australia and the United States have worked together in partnership to confront common threats to democracy. From the summer of 1918, when the U.S. 33rd National Guard Division joined Australian troops at the battle of Le Hamel in France, we have fought together as allies in World War I, World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and more recently in the conflicts in the Persian Gulf and Somalia.
In addition to our extensive defense and intelligence cooperation, Australia has worked closely with the United States to combat global problems—such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic, international criminal syndicates and narcotics trafficking, and the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and missile technologies.
We have also served together in international peacekeeping efforts, for which, in particular, Australia should be deeply commended for its outstanding leadership of multinational operations in East Timor, which resolved the crisis and restored stability.
The United States and Australia also have a robust trade relationship. We are Australia's second largest trading partner, with annual trade exceeding $22 billion, and our two nations consult and work together closely in the World Trade Organization and APEC for the promotion of international trade and regional economic development.
Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, I urge our colleagues to support passage of this measure that honors our common heritage with Australia—the respect for human rights and rule of law, the trust in free market economies and our fundamental belief in government by democratic rule.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Adoption of this measure sends a strong message affirming the deep respect and enduring bonds of friendship binding the United States with Australia, and will be a worthy welcome to Australian Prime Minister John Howard on his state visit to Washington next week.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GREGORY W. MEEKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
H.R. 2646
I want to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their leadership and the work of both Committee Staffs, for working in a bipartisan nature to develop this amendment.
This bill deals with an important area of US foreign policy and I am delighted that Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos have worked together to reclaim our Committee's shared jurisdictional responsibilities with the Agriculture Committee over international agricultural programs.
I want to state my strong support for the Hyde/Lantos Amendment.
It makes a number of long desired improvements in our international agricultural commodity assistance programs under our Food for Peace and Food for Progress Titles.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This amendment provides greater flexibility to our government agencies like the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Commodity Credit Corporation and their NGO and PVO partners in carrying out these important activities which support both humanitarian and market development activities.
I'm even more excited about the two new initiatives which the Hyde/Lantos amendment authorizes, The George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Act and the Farmers for Africa and Caribbean program. I'd like to make a few comments about the Farmers for Africa and Caribbean program.
Many farmers in Africa and the Caribbean Basin face a wide range of domestic and foreign constraints on their capabilities to produce crops for either self subsistence or for local regional, and global markets.
One category of the constraints faced by farmers in Africa and the Caribbean are their reliance on the use antiquated techniques and inadequate farming systems to produce, store and transport their crops, which results in poor crop quality, low crop yields, spoilage and lost income opportunities.
Many of these farmers are losing domestic market opportunities to supply agricultural products to restaurants, tourists, grocery stores and other domestic consumers, to farmers in European and Asian countries who use advanced planting technologies and production techniques, often in conjunction with various types of support programs from their governments.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This program is an excellent first step in responding to the need which exists for the training of farmers in African and Caribbean Basin countries and other developing countries in farming techniques that are appropriate for the majority of eligible farmers in African and Caribbean countries.
Such techniques would include and not be limited to; modern pre and post harvest techniques for standardization of quality assurance purposes, systematic development of efficient indigenous growing practices, insecticide and sanitation procedures, and ''organic'' farming methods that will produce increased yields of nutritious crops on a consistent basis.
While this bill is a good start and has the potential to make a positive impact on the lives of many, we in this body would be remiss if we believe that it is enough.
I'm sure my colleagues are aware that the greatest constraints on African and Caribbean farmers to produce agricultural products are not simply of a technical nature, they are in the forms of government subsidies paid to farmers which distort international markets, tariff spikes and non-tariff barriers which reduce their export market opportunities, and asymmetries in levels of trade liberalization which create competitive disadvantages. I hope this committee will explore these issues in the future, so that the funds we authorize for our farmer to farmer and international food and education programs are able to achieve the best possible results.
Once again, thank you Mr. Chairman and our Ranking Member for your leadership on these important matters. Given the fact that the majority of people living in developing countries live in rural areas and rely on agricultural production for their sources of income, the best way to reduce poverty is to remove the constraints on subsistence and market opportunities for people to earn incomes and create wealth in their societies.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
H.R. 2646
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde/Lantos amendment to H.R. 2646, and in particular, Section 312. Originally proposed as H.R. 1700 by my colleagues, Congressman James McGovern and Congresswoman Joann Emerson, this section enhances the Global Food for Education Initiative Pilot Program in important ways. In a country where our farmers often produce a surplus of agricultural commodities such as soybeans, more than we, as Americans can consume, it is incumbent upon us to use the excess in socially responsible ways. The Global Food for Education Initiative Pilot Program, launched in December, 2000, provides a sustainable way to take that surplus and deliver it to the world's neediest young people so that they may receive the food they need to grow and thrive. Under this initiative, school-feeding programs alleviate short-term hunger and improve cognition. Making the connection between good nutrition and educational opportunities seems obvious. Children need good nutrition and health for strong cognitive and sensory development. Strong cognitive and sensory development lead to and increased capability to learn and retain knowledge. Children who are impoverished do not receive good nutrition and, as a result, suffer from diminished cognitive abilities and sensory impairments. Because most if not all of their time is absorbed by the search for food, their health suffers and, more importantly, they do not have time to attend school. School feeding programs like those provided under the Pilot Program which would be made permanent under this section, free children and their families of the perpetual need to search for food so that they may concentrate on what is important in their young lives: learning and developing strong minds and bodies.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Pilot Program also has direct benefits for the U.S. It aims to purchase more than 630,000 metric tons of U.S. commodities and includes transporting these commodities abroad. If this program were to be made permanent, it would, over time, increase funds available for commodity purchases to $750 million annually for pre-school and school feeding programs and introduce a $250 million global-WIC program. A range of States that produce agricultural products would benefit from this program, including my home state of New York, Texas, Tennessee, California, Kentucky, Utah and New Jersey, among others. U.S. ports that export these goods would benefit, as would those States that contribute related products, including nutritional supplements and containers.
Finally, stronger and healthier children who stay in school can better contribute to their domestic economies in adulthood. Strong economies mean more stable countries and better trading partners for the U.S.
Section 312 of the Hyde/Lantos amendment to the Agricultural Act of 2001, would, among other things, make the Global Food for Education Initiative Pilot Program permanent, add a Global WIC program, and provide technical assistance and advice to recipient countries on how to establish and carry out effective school feeding programs. As such, it is a critical step toward increased child survival. Approximately one half of all childhood deaths each year in developing countries, or almost 5 million childhood deaths, are caused by pneumonia, malaria, diarrheal diseases, or measles. Better medical care and access to medicines are essential to lowering this casualty rate. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 1269, the Global Health Act of 2001, which calls for nearly $225 million for the health and survival of children to address these diseases. But that is only half of the story. Good nutrition is another key piece of the puzzle for children in these countries. I believe that the Pilot Program should be made a permanent feature of our assistance to developing countries. Their children are their future and, through proper nutrition and increased learning, they can be provided a better opportunity to contribute to that future.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC