Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the time agreement.

I rise in support of this amendment, which has one fundamental premise attached to it. That is, it is a limitation amendment that says that American dollars to be used in the reconstruction of the post- Saddam Hussein Iraq will not be able to be expended to countries that were the coalition of the unwilling: France, Germany, the Russian Federation, or Syria.

It is a commonsense amendment. It is an amendment that was discussed at length in the Committee on Appropriations earlier this week, and it underscores one fundamental concept, and that is that in the postwar Iraq, there will be American dollars expended for reconstruction, and in that reconstruction effort, it seems only commonsensical and advisable that American taxpayer dollars be spent for American corporations that are doing business there, to create jobs in this country, and also to provide corporate and contract authority to companies and entities that are part of the coalition of the countries that assisted America and Great Britain and the rest of her allies in this joint effort to try to liberate the country of Iraq. It seems to me to be common sense. It seems to me to be well expected with respect to a responsible expenditure of dollars, American taxpayer dollars in postwar Iraq.

It also recognizes that there will be many kinds of expenditures and contributions across this world to help the people of Iraq get back on their feet. This amendment does not prevent the French or the Germans or the United Nations or anybody else from participating in that reconstruction effort. The limitation is not with American tax dollars.

So I am pleased to present this amendment. I believe it has broad support, and I am happy to acknowledge the cosponsorship of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), Mr. Kennedy the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My understanding is that there is some confusion at the desk about the text of the amendment. It was originally designated as number 11. I substituted another text of language that was, my understanding was number 11.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the text that was substituted well ahead in place of the original amendment be considered as read.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What I did was put number 11 on the text, expecting that that is what the Chair was considering at the time that I called up the amendment. So I guess,

my sense is, Mr. Chairman, we have two number 11s, and my understanding was that the Chair was clear with respect to what amendment we called up. There is only one amendment with a slightly modified text, and that is the one that we should be debating and that is what I am expecting to be debating.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering to withdraw the amendment which has been designated 11 by the Chair with the expectation that the real amendment number 11 will be offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) in due course under the same circumstances, so we will be able to debate in full the issue before the House, rather than be denied on a technicality.

Yes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I do think it is important that we put this debate into perspective. This is a good thing we are doing. We should be debating issues of expenditure of taxpayer dollars. This is not holy pictures. This is an important time for our country to talk about how we spend billions of dollars in this country.

Why in the world would our legislative body cede the authority for that to the administration? I respect this administration, but this is a congressional responsibility. And just because there is a difference in position on the issue that is before the House does not mean that this is posing for holy pictures. I think that is an objectionable declaration about what this is. This is in the best traditions of this House.

On the Committee on Appropriations just this week we had a fabulous debate on this precise issue and on an amendment that was very near to this one. It was a broader amendment, frankly, that gave the President great waiver authority to decide whether exceptions could be made with respect to the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for reconstruction in Iraq. So beyond being something that is frivolous, this is very serious business, and I would argue to my colleagues that this is in the best tradition of this House to talk about this issue of how we spend the money that the taxpayers send to us to decide how to spend.

It is not unreasonable that we make a judgment about what foreign countries should benefit with taxpayer dollars that are sent to Washington by loyal Americans. But it is the Congress' decision to decide whether a priority might be American jobs and American companies and allied countries, companies, and jobs. So what is wrong with having friends in the world and communicating with those friends and especially creating jobs in this country?

I would argue that anybody who votes against this has the potential to favor French job creation rather than American job creation. How in the world are we going to feel in 2 months, when perhaps our country would award a contract to a German or a French or a Russian company to the exclusion of American interests, to an American company that could do the job just as well? I would argue, my colleagues, that we should be concerned about that.

So this is a good debate. This is a good amendment. It is the amendment that I intended to have before the House before a point of order was raised. So that is fine. I appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) being there to offer this amendment. But we should never confuse a good debate and a difference of opinion on the issues as being unworthy or worthy. We can make our judgments about the validity of our arguments, but to say that this is not worthy of the House or not an appropriate debate as to how taxpayer dollars will be spent misses the mark.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. This is what we are sent here to do, to guard the Treasury of the United States. This is the taxpayers' money. This is the people's House. The House of Representatives decides the appropriations for this country. I urge us to exercise our obligation and to vote for this amendment, and I believe it will pass.

Offered By: Mr. Nethercutt

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight on an issue that deals with American agriculture. Today, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Agriculture, the House full committee passed a supplemental appropriations bill to assist our soldiers and military folks with respect to the prosecution of the war in Iraq, and provide other humanitarian aid and other financial assistance to the region of the Middle East and assist in the war effort there, and recognize the importance of supporting our fighting men and women in that theater.

Also, as part of the appropriations measure that passed the House Committee on Appropriations today, there was a provision that relates to food assistance for the people of Iraq, and a preparation for the understanding that our country has committed itself to try to help the people of the Middle East region, and certainly the people in Iraq, who are the innocent victims of a tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein.

I want to address a portion of the appropriations bill that deals with the agriculture commitment that the country has made in the supplemental appropriations bill.

It is a good measure. It is a supplemental that is supported by the President, by the majority party, by I think a unanimous vote in the Committee on Appropriations today, to provide assistance to the troops and make sure that our military receives all that it needs.

The section that I want to refer to in the appropriations bill that we will have a chance to debate and vote on later this week, and certainly in conference with the Senate, the other body, next week and hopefully to get this measure signed into law by the President before April 11, is a measure that has to do with the integrity of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.

Bill Emerson was a former Member, a wonderful man from Missouri, a dear friend and a colleague of many Members of Congress, who passed away; and the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Fund was created in his memory, and properly so. That Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust was created to provide food aid on an emergency basis to countries around the world who are struggling for food in times of emergency and dire straits and national consequence.

Our country has been very forthright in providing this assistance and making sure that the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust is not only stocked with adequate commodities, but also cash to purchase commodities when the need arises; and it has done millions and millions of people a world of good in making sure that they are able to eat. And it is out of the goodness of the American taxpayer and the American system that we provide that assistance.

What we have seen in the use of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, administered by the Department of Agriculture in our country, is what I perceive to be a distortion of the operation of the trust. About a year ago, last summer in fact, there was a determination made by USDA to sell onto the open market soft white wheat, which is manufactured, grown, produced in my part of the country, the State of Washington. In doing so, the actions by the U.S. Department of Agriculture depressed the price on the open market of soft white wheat. Over the course of the last few months, since November, additional efforts have been undertaken by USDA to sell wheat stocks, soft white wheat stocks, in anticipation of humanitarian needs around the world.

In the most recent activity in the trust, there has been a move by USDA to monetize soft white wheat in order to obtain cash, which would then be used to buy other commodities, rice and others, which may be useful in Iraq.

Now, I have no quarrel with the idea that we need to provide food aid to Iraq. This is a war-torn country with people starving at the hands of Saddam Hussein. America, as it has in the past, is ready at the present to provide assistance to the people of Iraq. So it is not an issue with me over how or whether we should provide food aid to the people of Iraq.

There is an issue as to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's operation, administration of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.

What we have seen is the monetization of soft white wheat at the expense of the farmers who grow soft white wheat and at the expense of the market which is driven by the amount of wheat that is on the market at any one time. The price of wheat, we have seen in my farm country, has gone from $4.80 cents a bushel in November to a range of about $3.15 cents to $3.25 cents per bushel currently. The market collapsed to a no-bid market on March 21, just a week or so ago, on the rumor that the Department of Agriculture was going to dump more wheat on the market and raise cash for other commodities.

What my admonition to the USDA has been is, do not monetize soft white wheat so you can buy other commodities. Let us make sure, as we face the needs of the people of Iraq and the humanitarian commitment that our country is willing and able to make, let us make sure this is a wartime cost which is necessary to assist people in other parts of the world who may be facing disasters, natural or otherwise.

So what we are trying to do is make sure that the USDA, number one, follows the intent of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, and that the process is in place to do so in a fair manner, commodity to commodity, around the country, and not place a monetization practice in place which then puts soft white wheat farmers, for example, at odds with rice growers in different parts of the country.

So the monetization prohibition, which I think is sensible for our government to operate and administer the food aid programs of our country, is part of the appropriations bill that passed in the Committee on Appropriations today and will be before the House of Representatives, most likely later this week. So that is one restriction that needs to be in place. And the Department of Agriculture must listen to this development which has been undertaken by the House, by the legislative branch of our government, and not do more monetization, not undertake more monetization of one commodity which places farmers which grow that commodity against farmers of another commodity that may be suitable for distribution in Iraq.

In addition, the House has put $69 million additional food aid money, unrestricted, able to have any commodity on the market be purchased, to meet the needs of the people of Iraq; and that is an acceptable and appropriate activity development on the part of the Committee on Appropriations and this House and the legislative branch.

It is likely to stay in the bill all the way through the process in dealing with the other body as well as the reconciliation with the House conferees to come up with a final supplemental appropriations package that will assist in the war effort, including humanitarian aid assistance.

I am here, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize most definitively that monetization of commodity that places one grower against another is bad agriculture policy in this country. It is a disservice to the agriculture community, which is struggling for price support and market price in any event; and it puts farmer against farmer, which is an unacceptable condition. In addition, the misuse, I would argue, of the Bill Emerson humanitarian trust to assist in Iraq when additional moneys are being poured into the war effort as part of the defense bill, as part of the supplemental appropriations bill to assist those good people of Iraq who need the assistance from food aid, there is no need to further monetize or further distort the market for soft white wheat or rice or any other commodity that is subject to administration under the Bill Emerson humanitarian trust.

The third point I want to raise is that in depressing the market by government action, which puts more commodities on the market and lowers the price of any commodity, what we are doing is then under the loan deficiency payment program of the farm bill, the agriculture policy in this country, what it is doing is subjecting the taxpayer to additional expense by virtue

of that market price going down below the loan deficiency payment level that then kicks in so that there is more taxpayer assistance to farmers because of that low price. My strong point and my strong message to USDA is the U.S. Department of Agriculture should not be taking actions which depress the price which then expose the taxpayer to other liability in aid to the farmer. Instead, let the market decide what the commodities market price should be. And so when you monetize and sell one commodity to buy another, you distort the market, and that is what USDA in my opinion has been doing and doing improperly.

I come to the floor tonight to make this very strong message to USDA and any others of the eight government agencies who are involved in the decision to monetize soft white wheat. This is bad policy. We should not be doing it, especially in light of the prohibition on monetization that exists in the current House appropriations bill that passed the Appropriations Committee today and will likely come to this House floor sometime this week, hopefully, and then be reconciled with the other body's version of the supplemental appropriations bill and then be signed by the President most likely at the end of next week.

I am urging caution on the part of the USDA. I have had conversations with the agency. I have had conversations with USAID to try to make the point that help is on the way in terms of money and prohibition on monetization; and my great hope is that the agencies of government who are committed to helping the agriculture industry in this country, the farmers who grow the products that you and I consume, that there will be some restraint on the part of the USDA, that there will be a cancellation of any other notices to monetize soft white wheat so that rice can be purchased, because there is additional money in the pipeline that is going to be coming to the rice growers of the country or the wheat growers of the country to provide the commodity needs that will meet the expectations and the requirements of the people who are suffering in Iraq.

We have 69 million additional dollars. We have $250 million for PL- 480 assistance. There is additional money that will help the poor, starving people of this war-torn region. We will do that and we should do that but not at the expense of the commodity growers in the eastern district of Washington State or other States around the country who are affected by a misuse or mismanagement or a distorting impact that comes with monetizing the Bill Emerson humanitarian trust.

I will be pursuing this issue in due course to make sure that the U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies understand the consequences of monetization, the impact on the markets and the impact on the taxpayer. Ultimately, the taxpayers when prices go way down in the soft white wheat market are going to have to bear the burden. That is not what the farmer wants. The farmer wants a market price. We had a market price of $4.80 a bushel some several months ago but because of, in part, additional dumping on the market of U.S. Government agency stocks, the price has gone down, and we now have a further crisis in farm country.

We cannot afford to lose the agriculture infrastructure in this Nation. If prices are so low that farmers are not going to grow commodities, we are going to find ourselves in days and months and years ahead, hopefully not, we are going to find ourselves facing the challenge of being independent agriculturally. We are going to be dependent on other countries of the world for our agriculture. That is unacceptable, and that is what we are trying to prevent by allowing market forces to have an important part in agriculture policy, not a distorting impact because of determinations made by USDA, our own Agriculture Department, which has the mission to help the farmers and the food needs of people in this country.

I would just say, too, as we look at the dependence that we have on fossil fuels, on oil from the Middle East countries, we are now in a war that has as a factor in it the issue of oil reserves and who is producing oil reserves. We are dependent on foreign countries. We cannot allow that to happen in America as it relates to our dependence on agriculture commodities from overseas. That is why we need a robust agriculture economy here and proper administration of the Bill Emerson trust, the humanitarian trust, proper administration of the food aid programs, proper respect for agriculture interests and the value of markets and the value of the movement of markets, prices go up and down; but let the markets operate what the prices are rather than have the government be involved in distorting the market. If we have a hands-off policy or a helpful policy, as opposed to a hurtful policy by our U.S. Department of Agriculture, we will be a lot better off.

I would say to the Speaker and my colleagues, be on the lookout for any market distortion that might be coming out of government agencies as it relates to agriculture, and I urge my colleagues to support this idea that monetization is not a good thing when you are trying to put farmer against farmer by our own Department of Agriculture, because the goal ultimately is to have a robust agriculture economy providing enough food so that we can continue to provide assistance to natural disaster consequences and the people who are subject to natural disasters or food shortages or drought or any other consequence that comes around this great world, that America can help solve by providing food aid.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003.

I know first-hand about the difficulty involved in managing this disease, as my daughter was diagnosed with diabetes when she was 6. I have hope in the rapid pace of research in this area and believe that one day soon there will be a cure for my daughter and the millions of Americans with diabetes. The legislation we are introducing today is an important step toward this goal.

It is a promising time for research on diabetes, and those suffering from the disease and their families are filled with hope. One of the most exciting recent advances, and the focus of this legislation, is pancreatic islet cell transplantation. Many have hailed the breakthrough in this area as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921.

In 2000, researchers in Edmonton, Canada, were successful in isolating islets from donor pancreases and transplanting those cells into a person with diabetes through an injection. These injected islets then begin to function and produce insulin, and this procedure appears to offer the most immediate cure for diabetes. This procedure has become known as the Edmonton Protocol and of the approximately 200 patients who have been transplanted using variations of this protocol, nearly 80 percent remain insulin independent beyond 2 years. The research is moving forward quickly, and researchers around the world are trying to replicate and expand on this success and make it appropriate for children.

I am proud that exciting advances are underway in the State of Washington. Recently, a clinical research team at the JDRF Center for Human Islet Transplantation in Seattle performed the first three human islet transplants in the Northwest. All of these individuals were suffering the effects of advanced diabetes complications prior to receiving the transplant, and all three have now achieved critical post-transplant success in the management of their blood sugar levels. I am heartened to know that the Seattle program team plans to continue its research in the future.

The Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003 contains four provisions that I believe will help move this research forward. The first section of the bill provides a regulatory incentive to organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to procure additional pancreases. One of the major challenges in promoting research on and transplantation of islet cells is the shortage of pancreases. Approximately 2,000 pancreases are donated each year, and only approximately 500 of those donated are available for use in islet cell transplants. Clearly, this is not nearly a large enough supply considering that millions of Americans have diabetes. While OPOs do receive credit from CMS for pancreases retrieved and used for whole pancreas transplants, they do not receive credit for pancreases retrieved and used for islet cell transplantation. This creates a disincentive for OPOs to retrieve pancreases for

research or islet transplantation. My legislation attempts to provide an incentive to OPOs by directing CMS to provide credit to OPOs for pancreases retrieved and used for research and islet transplantation.

The second section of this legislation creates a federal inter-agency committee to coordinate efforts in the area of islet transplantation and to make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on regulations and policies that would advance this exciting area of research.

The goal of the human clinical trials is to demonstrate success over a longer period of time, and move islet cell transplantation from an experimental procedure to standard therapy covered by insurance and appropriate for all individuals with diabetes. The third section of this legislation directs the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study on clinical outcomes and comprehensive cost-utility analysis that will be important in moving toward this goal.

The fourth section of this bill creates a Medicare demonstration project. A significant percentage of individuals with type I diabetes has kidney failure and becomes Medicare eligible before the age of 65. Insufficient data exists to determine the efficacy of a simultaneous islet-kidney transplant or an islet transplant after a kidney transplant for individuals with type I diabetes. By directing the Secretary of HHS to create a demonstration project to test Medicare coverage for individuals with type I diabetes, we can assess the value of simultaneous islet-kidney transplants or islet transplant after a kidney transplant.

I encourage all of my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for his kind introduction and for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to pay recognition today to particularly one of the members of the space shuttle who was lost last Saturday, February 1, knowing that America lost seven heroes, and one of those was from my hometown of Spokane, Washington.

Michael Anderson, the Columbia space shuttle's payload commander, grew up watching planes at Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane and graduated from nearby Cheney High School. Even as a young man, his dreams were far off in the stars. He once said that he could not remember a time when he did not want to be an astronaut.

He followed his fine father into the Air Force and received his commission after graduating from the University of Washington in 1981. He was so proud of his service to his country and to wear his ROTC uniform around campus during a decade when that was not particularly popular, and his family and community have likewise been very proud of him.

During his distinguished service as a pilot, he earned a master's degree in physics from Creighton University, and he kept his dreams in the stars.

Finally, in 1998, he got to fly the mission he had been waiting for for nearly 20 years: his first flight into space was aboard the shuttle Endeavor.

I had the great privilege of meeting Michael Anderson in 1999 when he accepted my invitation to speak to students at schools around our hometown about the space program. The children were wide-eyed as they listened to his stories, and they laughed particularly hard at his story about trying to catch M&Ms in his mouth without the effects of gravity in space.

Michael had a warmth about him that moved those children, and his courage and service inspired those children to reach for their own dreams, be they in the stars or down here on Earth.

Michael's accomplishments, his courage, and his discipline are representative of the crew he flew with and a source of pride for our community.

His continued dedication to space and science tells us that after a full investigation we should continue to pursue human space flight. For Michael's sake and the sake of the other crew members, we must keep reaching for the stars, lest their sacrifice be in vain.

As Americans, this tragedy should teach us all that we must not treat space missions as routine. All astronauts are accomplished individuals willing to put themselves in danger for the sake of bettering humankind and advancing mankind's dream of space exploration. They are courageous, they are committed; and we owe them all a debt of thanks for their service, not just in times of tragedy, but every day.

At a time like this, it is natural to ask who is at fault and what happened. But I believe that this is not the time for fault-finding, for recrimination, and for blame. We must come together and support the families of these astronauts and unify to support the entire NASA family.

As we move forward, I have vast confidence in Administrator Sean O'Keefe, Deputy Administrator Fred Gregory, and Associate Administrator Bill Readdy. The public face of the shuttle program over the last few days, Ron Dittemore, also a native of my hometown of Spokane, has also stepped up in a time of crisis and has performed admirably. Mr. Speaker, the entire NASA team deserves our thanks for pulling together and demonstrating firm resolve to get to the bottom of this incident.

And as we consider what went wrong, we must also consider NASA's future. As a member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, we know that this year we will pass a NASA authorization bill, a bill that even before this tragedy promised to be the most important measure since the start of the shuttle program.

We will evaluate the future of the shuttle fleet. We will weigh upgrades to the orbiters against the substantial investment required to make the next-generation reusable launch vehicle a reality. We will examine the appropriate balance for scientific investigation and engineering achievement. We will prioritize between observations of our own planet and a better understanding of our solar system and our universe.

But I am confident that at the end of the deliberations, we will conclude that human space flight must continue, because space continues to be the final frontier; and as long as we can look upward at night and be fascinated with the prospect of unknown worlds, human space flight will be part of our space program.

I believe that Michael Anderson would not have us choose otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unavoidably absent on January 8, 2003. I ask the Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 7, final passage of S. 23, the Unemployment Insurance Benefits Extension Act.