Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 13, 2004)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 710 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4766.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, although I am not sure it is at the desk.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman submit his amendment to the desk.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I think they are bringing it, but I am not sure of the status.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, as we have not had a chance to review this amendment, I would like to reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. BAIRD. And my understanding is that it may be ruled out of order; but if I may, I would like to speak to it, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must submit his amendment to the desk in order for it to be considered. Does the gentleman have an amendment?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is being brought to the floor. If I might ask the gentleman if we could bring it back up in a few moments, I would appreciate it. My understanding was it had been submitted. Apparently, somehow, it did not get here.

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman from Washington would offer an amendment, the Clerk would designate it and consideration would proceed under the order of the House.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentleman that, to our knowledge, this is the last amendment; and we are a little bit stumped as to why we would not have a copy of the amendment here. We are concluding a major appropriation bill.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington to discuss this issue.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It was my understanding the amendment was here, and I apologize for the confusion.

Mr. Chairman, it was my intent to withdraw the amendment, but I wanted to rise today to discuss a program fraught with waste. It was created with noble intentions but is poorly constructed and implemented, and as a result has facilitated, I think, abuse of an otherwise well-intentioned program. I am referring to the Livestock Compensation Program, which provides Federal funds to compensate livestock producers for financial losses stemming from natural disasters.

I strongly support the intentions of the LCP, and I applaud the Secretary of Agriculture for creating the program. However, when it was created in 2002, it was designed to provide payments to compensate for drought damages, and then Congress expanded the program in 2003 to provide payments for all natural disasters.

Congress only authorized the program until 2003; and, consequently, the LCP is currently dormant. However, we can be assured that the Secretary and Congress would likely be pressured to reauthorize the program during the next significant disaster, which is, unfortunately, an inevitability.

While I support the intentions of the LCP, the authorizing legislation and accompanying regulations contained a massive loophole. Essentially, it was this: the LCP did not require eligible parties to demonstrate any actual loss to receive Federal assistance. As a consequence, ranchers who resided in regions affected by natural disasters, but whose property was completely unaffected, were able to march down to the local FSA, provide documentation simply that they owned livestock, and receive a check for as much as $40,000. They did not have to demonstrate that their farm or ranch had been harmed; neither did they have to demonstrate that their livestock had been harmed. Apparently, FSA simply wrote checks without asking the relatively simple question: What sort of damages did you sustain?

To this day, we have no idea how much money was wasted because the government failed to ask this question. We do know, however, that the program distributed a total of $1.1 billion, including $234 million for disasters other than drought.

We asked the USDA Inspector General to investigate the program; and, indeed, they suggested it was in need of reform. That is why I am calling this to the attention of this committee. I believe we ought to address this.

My understanding is that the amendment was likely to be ruled out of order, and I do have now available a copy of the amendment, so that I would have had to withdraw it. But I would ask this committee to consider this. This is a program that may have been well intentioned, but has been abused. If it is extended further, we need to make sure that money only goes to people who have suffered livestock loss.

We talk a lot about waste, fraud, and abuse in this Congress. Here is a clear-cut case of waste. I do not think it is intentional fraud, but it is clearly waste and possibly abuse, and so I think we should address it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his indulgence, and I submit for the RECORD a copy of the amendment I had intended to offer.

Amendment to H.R. 4766, As Reported Offered by Mr. Baird of Washington

Page 79, after line 16, insert the following (and make such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

SEC. 759. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to make payments pursuant to the Livestock Compensation Program to persons who do not incur a financial loss resulting from the natural disaster with respect to which such payments are otherwise available.