[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 132 (Thursday, October 4, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6266-H6342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 248 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. 2646.
{time} 1026
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2646) to provide for the continuation of agricultural
programs through fiscal year 2011, with Mr. Hastings of Washington
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
October 3, 2001, Amendment Number 52, printed in the Congressional
Record, by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) had been disposed of
and the amendment in the nature of a substitute was open to amendment
at any point.
Are there further amendments?
Amendment No. 61 Offered by Mr. Tierney
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 61 offered by Mr. Tierney:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. 932. REPORT REGARDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS.
(a) In General.--Not later than one year after funds are
made available to carry out this section, the Secretary of
Agriculture, acting through the National Academy of Sciences,
shall complete and transmit to Congress a report that
includes recommendations for the following:
(1) Data and tests.--The type of data and tests that are
needed to sufficiently assess and evaluate human health risks
from the consumption of genetically engineered foods.
(2) Monitoring system.--The type of Federal monitoring
system that should be created to assess any future human
health consequences from long-term consumption of genetically
engineered foods.
(3) Regulations.--A Federal regulatory structure to approve
genetically engineered foods that are safe for human
consumption.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $500,000
to carry out this section.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, the safety of our food supply is one of
our Nation's top priorities obviously, but increasingly, Americans are
becoming concerned about the genetically engineered ingredients that
are in their food. Because of that concern, I have introduced this
reasonable amendment that provides for a National Academy of Sciences
study to examine three important health-related aspects of genetically
engineered foods.
First, that the tests being performed on genetically engineered foods
to ensure their health safety are adequate and relevant.
Second, what type of monitoring system is needed to assess future
health consequences from genetically engineered foods.
And third, what type of regulatory structure should be in place to
approve genetically engineered foods for humans to eat.
Genetically engineered crops can be found in many of the foods we eat
every day. Potato chips, soda, baby food, they all contain genetically
engineered ingredients. Last year, many Americans became aware of the
pervasiveness of these ingredients in our food when Starlink corn that
was genetically engineered wound up in human food, and not just the
animal feed for which it was approved.
We need to address this issue before we have more unexpected
incidents like this.
Mr. Chairman, this issue is not going to be resolved on its own.
Several States, including my home State of Massachusetts, are
considering legislation that would impose a moratorium on the planting
of genetically engineered crops. In the meantime, the number of
genetically engineered crops planted by farmers is continuing to grow.
In the year 2000, more than 100 million acres of land around the
world were planted with genetically engineered crops. This is 25 times
as much as was planted just 4 years before. If we do not make an effort
to ensure the best testing, monitoring and regulatory structures are in
place now, our farmers are going to suffer the consequences of any
future lack of public confidence in genetically engineered foods.
This effort has been endorsed by the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, an organization devoted to improving the safety and
nutritional quality of our food supply, and I urge all of my colleagues
to join me in supporting this common sense amendment to protect our
farmers and our families.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's offering the
amendment, and I know that this is of great concern. I wanted to
mention that numerous studies have been undertaken by private
scientific societies, public universities, regulatory agencies and the
National Academy of Sciences, which have addressed and dismissed this
question.
While the initial reaction to this amendment may be to question the
duplicative nature of yet another study, I recognize there is value in
continued education, evaluation of the ability to oversee the
application of new technologies to our food production and processing
systems, and I would like to indicate to the gentleman from
Massachusetts that the committee would be happy to accept the
amendment.
{time} 1030
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the chairman.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
It is generally agreed that the 21st century brings with it a new era
of biological sciences, with the advances in molecular biology and
biotechnology that promises longer, healthier lives and the effective
control, perhaps elimination of a host of acute and chronic diseases.
Right now we have the best safeguards in the world in testing any new
food product.
The biotechnological development of new plants that is achieved
through this new technology is more safe (according to witnesses
testifying at five hearings I have had now in my Subcommittee on
Research) more safe than the traditional cross-breeding or hybrid
breeding of plants. Most everything that we eat now, and buy at the
grocery store, has been genetically modified. The genetic modification
has
[[Page H6267]]
been accomplished by crossing one plant with another. With maybe 25 to
30,000 genes in a typical plant crossed with another plant, not knowing
what the end result is going to be is potentially more dangerous than
using the new technology.
With the new biotechnology, we have the ability to identify
particular genes and the folding of proteins related to those genes to
help assure that the resulting product is going to be safe. In addition
to that, we have the best regulatory safeguards anywhere in the world,
with USDA, with the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental
Protection Agency all looking into safeguarding these new plant and
food products.
I would hope we would not support any suggestion that is going to
reduce the scientific effort to achieve the kind of new food and feed
products that we need in this country and that have the potential of
being helpful to third world countries and a hungry world. The kind of
food products that could, for example, grow in the arid soils where
they were not able to grow in the past; food products that provide
vaccines or important vitamins and nutrients.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Tierney).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Pickering
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Pickering:
At the end of title IX, add the following section:
SEC. 9____. MARKET NAME FOR PANGASIUS FISH SPECIES.
The term ``catfish'' may not be considered to be a common
or usual name (or part thereof) for the fish Pangasius
bocourti, or for any other fish not classified within the
family Ictalariidae, for purposes of section 403 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including with respect
to the importation of such fish pursuant to section 801 of
such Act.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity first to
thank the Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for their
leadership on the underlying legislation, the farm bill, which is
greatly needed to stabilize and secure the farm economy as we go
forward over the next decade.
The amendment that I have before us today is very simple. In December
2000, the FDA made a unilateral decision to allow the Vietnamese to
label basafish as catfish. Now, this is equivalent to allowing water
buffalo to be imported into this country under the label of beef.
Since that time we have seen false, deceptive, and misleading
labeling of this product. For example, we have cajun delight catfish,
we have delta fresh farm raised catfish, and I can tell my colleagues
that we do not have these fish raised in the Mississippi Delta. It is
misleading.
The tragedy is that we have allowed a situation to occur which is
hurting an industry born a generation ago in Mississippi and Louisiana
and Arkansas and across the southeast that has given the catfish the
good name and the good flavor it has. This industry has created a vital
and important contribution to my State's economy. We need to do
everything that we can to make sure that our trade practices and
labeling are fair.
This amendment will do that and will require the labeling of the
Vietnamese import to be basa, as it should be.
Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize and thank my colleagues, the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Shows), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), who are
joining with me. I also want to thank the chairman for his work with me
in this effort.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PICKERING. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I
understand the problem that the catfish farmers are facing as a result
of an imported fish being inappropriately labeled.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) has worked hard to
develop a solution to this problem both administratively and
legislatively. We can continue to work to try to find solutions to the
problem. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and will be happy to
accept it.
Mr. PICKERING. I thank the chairman.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I
want to join with my colleague from Mississippi this morning in support
of this amendment.
The catfish industry in America is a very innovative, creative
industry. My father was one of the pioneers in that industry. I think
he would be terribly disappointed today to see what we are allowing to
happen as basafish are being brought into this country and mislabeled
catfish or mislabeled delta fresh. They are two completely different
products. They are genetically different. This would be the same as
calling a cat a cow, and we just simply should not allow it.
The Vietnamese basafish claim to be delta fresh. There is no way that
this can be possible and it misleads our customers. The Vietnamese
basafish are raised using cages thrown into the Mekong River, one of
the most polluted watersheds in the world.
It is costing our producers about 10 to 20 cents a pound as they try
to stay in business. They are struggling right now. They have a very
difficult marketplace because of the situation that this basafish
import has created. This price differential has made it so that our
producers are no longer profitable.
We simply cannot continue to let unsafe, mislabeled product destroy
our catfish producers in this country. Delta farm-raised catfish are of
the highest quality. They are clearly what the consumers want, and we
should not allow the mislabeling of Vietnamese basafish to continue and
to mislead our consumers.
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Pickering) and all my colleagues in supporting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, right now we know what rural America and rural
Mississippi is going through in agriculture. It is being depleted and
we are losing jobs and farmers every day. Catfish may not be a big
industry in the rest of the country, but catfish is the fourth largest
agricultural product in Mississippi. All the catfish feed mills and
processing plants are either family-owned or farmer-owned cooperatives.
Our family farmers are on the verge of going out of business and the
Vietnamese imported fish industry is putting them out of business.
Vietnamese fish products labeled as farm-raised catfish are flooding
our markets today. The Vietnamese farmers are producing inferior,
potentially unsafe fish products and disguising them with labels that
imitate the ones we place on ours, like farm-raised catfish. It is a
ploy to mislead and confuse the consumer about the origin of the
product.
In 1997, the U.S. imported 120,000 pounds of Vietnamese fish product.
Just 4 years later, in 2001, we are up to almost 20 million pounds of
so-called farm-raised catfish. The Vietnamese Government has verbally
agreed to cooperate with the American trade officials about labeling
the fish products, but we cannot rest on their assertions. This is why
I wholeheartedly support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues
to protect our American catfish and our farmers in rural America.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I want to thank Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for
working endlessly on the Farm Security Act of 2001. I want them to know
that I think they have done a superb job. I think it is an excellent
bill. The producers in my district think it is an excellent bill, in
spite of what some other people might say. I sincerely appreciate their
efforts to include the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
and Child Nutrition Program in the trade title of the farm bill.
Missouri's own Harry Truman joined 20,000 Americans on May the 8th,
1946, in sending food donations to victims and survivors of World War
II. Many of
[[Page H6268]]
these recipients were children. And when the packages reached the port
at LeHavre, France, it was clear that the folks in the U.S. had joined
forces to help those in need, something that Americans have always done
at home and abroad.
We are fortunate to have overcome the scars of starvation experienced
in World War II here in this country, but the battle against hunger and
for survival still exists today. We know the school lunch program here
in America has made a genuine difference in the lives of hungry
children; but, unfortunately, children in other countries are still
starving. Three hundred million poor children are undernourished, and
35,000 children die every day from hunger-related disease and illness.
A hungry child cannot learn.
I am very, very proud of the bill that my colleague, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and I introduced, the George
McGovern and Bob Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Act of 2001, which is loosely based on our American School
Lunch Program, which was originally sponsored in the United States
Senate by Senator Dole and Senator McGovern, who are known worldwide
for being champions of ending hunger.
Now, the Food for Education Act would make permanent a pilot program
for commodity donations that was established during the 106th Congress.
This is truly a win-win endeavor for the United States. Not only are we
able to feed children here at home and in poor countries, but we also
use surpluses from our farmers and producers, and that helps strengthen
their bottom lines at a time when our farmers are truly hurting.
Additionally, it strengthens farm prices, and we all know that aid
does lead to trade.
So I just want to thank the chairman and the ranking member once
again for including this very, very important piece of legislation
within the bill.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I am honored today to be a cosponsor of the Pickering-Ross amendment
to the farm bill. The farm-raised catfish industry is an important part
of the economy of my congressional district, which covers all of south
Arkansas, where many farm families have converted their row-crop farms
into catfish farms in recent years in order to turn a more decent
profit. In fact, Arkansas is number three in catfish sales in the
Nation, with nearly $66 million, or 13 percent, of the total United
States sales, behind only Mississippi and Alabama.
Today, these catfish producers in my district and around the country,
especially in the delta region, are being unfairly hurt by so-called
catfish being dumped into American markets from Vietnam and sold as
catfish. The truth is, it is not catfish. It is even not the same
species of fish. In fact, American farm-raised catfish and Vietnamese
so-called catfish are no more related than a cat is to a cow. Our
amendment would protect our farm-raised catfish producers by saying
that the term catfish cannot be used for any fish, such as the ones
from Vietnam, that are not specifically a member of the catfish family.
Last year, imports of Vietnamese catfish totaled 7 million pounds,
more than triple the 2 million pounds imported in 1999 and more than 12
times the 575,000 pounds imported back in 1998. Indications show that
imports have now reached as much as 1 million pounds a month. Many
catfish farmers estimate that these imports have taken away as much as
20 percent of their market share.
In Vietnam, the so-called catfish can be produced at a much lower
cost due to cheap labor and less stringent environmental regulations.
Many of these fish are being grown in cages in polluted rivers. Then
they are dumped into American markets and passed off as farm-raised
catfish.
{time} 1045
This dumping of so-called catfish into our country not only hurts our
farm families, if hurts our working families. Many of the plants where
the catfish are processed, hire workers who are making the transition
from welfare to work.
Just a few weeks ago, I visited a plant in my district in the Delta
in Lake Village, Arkansas that has already been forced to cut their
work schedule to a 4-day work week. Other catfish processing plants are
facing similar problems, and some are even facing the possibility of
having to close altogether.
It is really quite simple. Our farmers and our workers do not mind
competition, but they do mind when the competition is unfair. I urge my
colleagues to support America's farm-raised catfish industry, our farm
families, and our working families. I urge my colleagues to vote for
this amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of title III for this bill,
and in particular section 312, George McGovern-Robert Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
I especially want to express my appreciation for the leadership of
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) for including this provision in the chairman's
mark of title III when it was taken up by the Committee on
International Relations.
I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for negotiating on language and agreeing to
include section 312 in the final version of H.R. 2646.
I pledge to work with my colleagues and the administration to
identify a reliable funding stream for this program as the farm bill
moves through the legislative process. In the meantime, section 312
makes it clear that the President may continue to use existing
authorities to continue and expand the pilot program.
In May, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and I introduced
H.R. 1700, a bill to establish the Global Food for Education Program
inspired by a proposal advocated by former Senators McGovern and Dole,
this bill currently has 107 bipartisan cosponsors. Section 312 is a
modified version of this bill.
The George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program would provide at least one nutritious meal each
day in a school setting to many of the more than 300 million school
children who go to bed hungry. Some 130 million of these children do
not go to school because their parents need them to go to work at home
or go to menial jobs or because they are orphaned by war, natural
disasters, or diseases like AIDS.
This program would complement and expand throughout the world
America's own highly successful school breakfast and school lunch
programs. It would expand the President's commitment to education and
to leave no child behind to the international stage.
A pilot program currently reaches 9 million children in 38 countries.
With the provision in this bill, we now have the opportunity to create
a permanent program and expand its reach to nearly 30 million children.
We can blaze a trail for other donor nations to follow. We can
demonstrate America's commitment to achieving the worldwide goal of
cutting the number of hungry people in the world in half by 2015, while
at the same time providing education for all.
To carry out this program, we can call on the experience of groups
like Catholic Relief Services, CARE, Save the Children, Land O'Lakes,
and the United Nations World Food Program, that have successfully
proven that school feeding programs get more children into school and
keep them in school, especially girls.
We can purchase the necessary commodities from American farmers,
using the products of their hard labor to provide a school breakfast,
lunch, power snack or take-home meal that will turn a listless and
dull-eyed child into an attentive student. And American rail workers,
truck drivers, dock workers, port authorities and merchant marine will
make sure the food gets from our farms and our shores to where it is
needed most.
For just 10 cents a day for each meal, we can feed a hungry child and
help that child learn. With what we pay for a Big Mac, fries, and a
soft drink, we can afford to feed two entire classrooms of kids in
Ghana or Nepal.
In these difficult times, every action taken by the Congress,
including this farm bill, takes on added meaning in
[[Page H6269]]
the eyes of the world community. In examining our farm and rural
policy, we must seek to add value, economic, social, and moral, to the
dollars we spend on farm policy. One of the ways we do this is by
increasing international food aid through our existing programs and by
undertaking new initiatives. This bill does both.
For most of recent history, dating back to the 1950s, our country has
been the single largest donor of international food assistance. The
Global Food for Education Program, section 312, upholds that tradition.
It is especially important, during this trying time for our Nation,
that we continue our international involvement, particularly our aid to
children in developing countries, so that the world can clearly see our
abiding commitment to eradicating poverty, hunger, illiteracy, and
intolerance.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman's work on title III and the
increase in food aid programs. I strongly support the George McGovern-
Robert Dole International Food for Education Program, and I urge my
colleagues to support these food aid programs.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I also compliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos)
for including the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for
Education in this farm bill.
George McGovern is one of South Dakota's native sons, a Senator,
candidate for President of this great country, and a humanitarian.
Senator Dole is someone that he worked with on both sides of the aisle
putting together a bipartisan plan that would help address the needs of
needy children around the world.
Coming from a farm State, the McGovern-Dole Food Act appeals to South
Dakota because of its impact on the agricultural economy. While the
food aid is shipped overseas, much of the money stays here in the
United States. Domestic beneficiaries of food aid exports include
agricultural producers, places like my home State of South Dakota, and
suppliers, processors and millers .
In addition, food aid leads to food trade. U.S. food aid alleviates
poverty and promotes economic growth in recipient countries. At the
same time as incomes in developing countries are rising, consumption
patterns are changing and food and other imports of U.S. goods and
services increase. In 1996, 9 of the top 10 agricultural importers of
U.S. products were prior food aid recipients.
It is important to note that this legislation targets hungry and
malnourished children who are not going to school and who live in poor
communities. They wish they did have the money to buy American
agricultural products, but they do not.
The overwhelming majority of these children reside in the 87 low-
income, food deficit countries of the world. So even their governments
do not have the money to purchase our food.
Mr. Chairman, I believe food aid is a better alternative to the
billions of dollars in foreign aid that we spend every year. This
legislation would assure that children in need get food assistance
rather than giving money to some of the regimes around the world who
have less-than-pure motives when it comes to the way that they treat
their people.
The United States has a surplus of its high-quality agricultural
products. Why not help the starving children in underdeveloped nations
by giving them a piece of that surplus.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the willingness of the leadership on both
sides of the aisle to support this important initiative, this
legislation which has been worked on so diligently by a couple of great
statesmen and leaders in this countries, Senator McGovern and Senator
Dole. And I appreciate that it has been made a part of this farm
legislation, and I thank the leadership for their assistance with it.
It is a win-win for American producers and hungry children across the
world.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment offered by my good friend, Mr. Pickering. The United States
Catfish industry is currently subjected to unfair trade competition
which threatens the future success of many catfish producers and the
communities they support. Frozen fish fillets of an entirely different
family of fish are imported and unlawfully passed off to customers as
``catfish''. This is happening in such large and increasing volumes
that the true ``North American Catfish'' market is being flooded by a
lesser quality product at a much cheaper price.
American consumers are defrauded into believing that they are
receiving farm raised U.S. catfish instead of another species of fish
raised along the Mekong River in Vietnam. Most of the Vietnamese fish
are raised in floating cages and ponds along the Mekong River Delta,
feeding on whatever floats down the river. Yet the importers are
fraudulently marketing them as farm-raised grain-fed catfish. Since the
Vietnamese do not place a high value on cultivating the fish in a
controlled environment, their cost of production is much lower.
Importers of the Vietnam fish, searching for new markets, were
allowed by the FDA to use the term ``catfish'' in combination with
previously approved names. This has resulted in imports entering the
U.S. in skyrocketing quantities. The amendment offered today will
correct this mistake and help assure that consumers are receiving the
quality product that they so desire.
It is unlawful to pass a cheaper fish species off as another species.
There is evidence of widespread illegal packaging and labeling of the
Vietnamese fish which violates numerous existing laws, including the
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, the Trade-Mark Act of 1946, the
Customs origin marking requirements, and the Federal Food Drug and
Cosmetic Act.
Since 1997, the total import volume of Vietnamese catfish has risen
from less than 500 thousand pounds to over 7 million pounds in 2000.
According to the most recent data, imports are reaching levels of 2
million pounds per month and are on target to reach over 20 million
pounds this year. As of May this year, Vietnamese fish imports have
captured an estimated 20% of the U.S. catfish fillet market.
There are over 189,000 acres of land in catfish production, of which
110,000 are in my home state of Mississippi. U.S. catfish farmers
produce 600 million pounds of farm-raised catfish annually and require
1.8 billion pounds of feed. This supports over 90,000 acres of corn,
500,000 acres of soybeans, and cotton seed from over 230,000 acres of
cotton.
This very young industry has created a catfish market where none had
previously existed. They have done this by investing substantial
capital to producing a quality product which the consumer considers to
be reliable, safe, and healthy. We cannot allow unfair competition to
destroy the livelihood of farmers, processors, employees and
communities which depend on the American catfish industry.
I urge my colleagues to help protect the American catfish industry
and ensure that consumers are receiving the quality product they expect
by supporting the amendment offered by Mr. Pickering.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Pickering).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Holt
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Holt:
At the end of title IX, insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. PROGRAM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION REGARDING USE OF
BIOTECHNOLOGY IN PRODUCING FOOD FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION.
(a) Public Information Campaign.--Not later than one year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall develop and implement a program to
communicate with the public regarding the use of
biotechnology in producing food for human consumption. The
information provided under the program shall include the
following:
(1) Science-based evidence on the safety of foods produced
with biotechnology.
(2) Scientific data on the human outcomes of the use of
biotechnology to produce food for human consumption.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--For each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2011 there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this
section.
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is modeled after the Food
Biotechnology Information Act, the legislation that I introduced in the
106th Congress and again this year.
The point of the bill and this amendment is to give consumers the
best information possible so they can make
[[Page H6270]]
informed choices about the food they eat.
There is much uncertainty and much misinformation about biotechnology
and food engineering. Certainly we need to be careful with
biotechnology, as we need to be careful with all new and emerging
technologies. With a tool this powerful, there are possibilities of
damage and misuse. But as a scientist, I believe the use of
biotechnology can provide greater yields of nutritionally enhanced
foods with less land used and reduced use of pesticides and herbicides.
That is to say, biotechnology can be a real benefit to the consumer and
the environment.
Biotechnology applications are already reviewed and controlled by the
Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and other
agencies. My amendment deals with public information. I think the
government has a responsibility to provide clear, science-based,
evidence-based public information that helps consumers, policymakers,
and others make informed choices about foods.
I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for including part of my legislation, the
Food Biotechnology Information Act in this bill. It deals with sound
scientific research, and I thank them for doing that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to complete this by including this
information on this amendment on public information. It is a
straightforward amendment that directs the Secretary of Agriculture to
undertake an information campaign to provide scientifically based
information to consumers to allow them to understand the benefits and
indications of this new technology for their food choices.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's interest.
Biotechnology offers extraordinary potential, not only to improve the
economic viability of farms in the country, but to also help combat
animal and plant diseases, improve food safety and quality, and enhance
our ability to produce more food on less land with fewer agricultural
inputs. Therefore, improving our ability to enhance the environment. I
appreciate the gentleman's interest in the subject.
Mr. Chairman, the committee would be pleased to accept the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I, too, think this is a good amendment.
It could be very complementary to the activity that is already going on
in the biotechnology community. Since science-based information is
required, this is an excellent amendment; and I, too, join in its
support.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman
Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Watkins of Oklahoma
Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 65 offered by Mr. Watkins of Oklahoma:
At the end of title V, insert the following:
SEC. ____. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF FORECLOSURE ON CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY, AND RECOVERY OF CERTAIN
PAYMENTS FROM, BORROWERS WITH SHARED
APPRECIATION ARRANGEMENTS.
During the period that begins with the date of the
enactment of this Act and December 31, 2002, in the case of a
borrower who has failed to make a payment required under
section 353(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act with respect to real property, the Secretary of
Agriculture--
(1) shall suspend foreclosure on the real property by
reason of the failure; and
(2) may not attempt to recover the payment from the
borrower.
(Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I salute the gentleman from
Texas (Chairman Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for the job they have done in putting together
this tough piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I have a strong commitment to agriculture. I know that
it is a very difficult issue to work through. It is a very important
program for this great country and for the economy that we have which
extends around the world.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment; and I offer this amendment to the
farm bill which is vitally important to many family farmers across the
country. My amendment would temporarily suspend the collection
schedule, the foreclosures, until December 31, 2002, about 14 months,
on certain real property owned by, and recovery of certain payments
from farmer-borrowers with shared appreciation agreements.
Beginning in 1989, over 12,000 family farmers enrolled in shared
appreciation agreement. These agreements allowed farmers and ranchers
that so desperately need it to restructure their debt.
After 10 years, many of these farmers have been shocked and find
themselves in conflict with their own government about the repayment
and the type of schedule they must go through, and also how these new
payments have been calculated.
My amendment is important to many of our family farmers, especially a
lot of our elderly farmers in America. You cannot find a more committed
and dedicated people to our land, our soil, and our country; but many
farmers believe they have been misled by their government. I think it
is very important we allow ample time, and this is what my amendment
actually does.
{time} 1100
We have got to look at the calculations and the recapturing costs and
values of this. It gives the committee and others ample time to look
into these before many of our farmers and ranchers are hurt even
further.
I would like to request that the chairman and his ranking member
accept this to allow us the time to be able to look into it.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. I appreciate the gentleman working with the committee on
trying to come up with this amendment and his advance notice of it. We
have looked at it. We appreciate the gentleman's interest in
agriculture. We wish he served on our committee, but I understand that
the powerful committee that he is on has an agricultural interest as
well. I would like to tell the gentleman that the committee would be in
a position to accept the amendment.
Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. I thank the chairman and the ranking member.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Watkins).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Andrews
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Andrews:
At the end of subtitle F of title II, insert the following:
SEC. . PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE FOR REPAUPO CREEK TIDE GATE
AND DIKE RESTORATION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 403 of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2203), the
Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, shall provide assistance for
planning and implementation of the Repaupo Creek Tide Gate
and Dike Restoration Project in the State of New Jersey.
(b) Funding.--Of the funds available for the Emergency
Watershed Protection Program, not to exceed $600,000 shall be
available to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out
subsection (a).
Modification to Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Andrews
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be modified by striking subparagraph B.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
[[Page H6271]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Andrews:
Strike subsection (b).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman
Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for their excellent work on this
piece of legislation.
This amendment deals with a very serious problem in Gloucester
County, New Jersey, in my district which could lead to severe flooding,
loss of life and property damage for hundreds of families who live
adjacent to the Repaupo Creek. The tide gate, which is supposed to
control flooding on that creek, is in severely dilapidated condition.
The excellent work of the Agriculture Department in the State of New
Jersey has thus far indicated a willingness of that Department to
address and solve this problem.
In order to make it explicit that the Department of Agriculture has
the authority to provide assistance for the planning and implementation
of the Repaupo Creek tide gate and dike restoration project, I have
introduced this amendment. Again, I believe it is an excellent
preventative measure.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, just to make the record clear, subsection B of the
amendment would have provided an opportunity for a point of order by
the Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews) has worked this issue out with Chairman Bonilla. Striking that
subsection makes the amendment agreeable.
I would be in a position to recommend the committee accept the
amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I also wish to express my thanks to
Chairman Bonilla and his staff for helping us.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 57, Amendment No. 58 and Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr.
Thune
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask unanimous
consent that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Dakota?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendment No. 57, amendment No. 58 and amendment No. 59
offered by Mr. Thune:
Amendment No. 57: At the end of subtitle B of title II,
insert the following:
SEC. 215. EXPANSION OF PILOT PROGRAM TO ALL STATES.
Section 1231(h) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3831(h)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and 2002'' and all that
follows through ``South Dakota'' and inserting ``through 2011
calendar years, the Secretary shall carry out a program in
each State'';
(2) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``--'' and all that
follows and inserting ``not more than 150,000 acres in any 1
State.''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraphs
(3) through (5) as paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively.
____
Amendment No. 58: Add at the end of title IX the following:
SEC. 932. GAO STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a
study and make findings and recommendations with respect to
determining how producer income would be affected by updating
yield bases, including--
(1) whether crop yields have increased over the past 20
years for both program crops and oilseeds;
(2) whether program payments would be disbursed differently
in this Act if yield bases were updated;
(3) what impact this Act's target prices with updated yield
bases would have on producer income; and
(4) what impact lower target prices with updated yield
bases would have on producer income compared to this Act.
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report
to Congress on the study, findings, and recommendations
required by subsection (a), not later than 6 months after the
date of enactment of this Act.
____
Amendment No. 59: At the end, add the following (and make
such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
SEC. 932. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON AGRICULTURAL COMPETITION.
(a) Appointment.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish an Interagency Task Force on Agricultural
Competition (in this section referred to as the ``Task
Force'') and, after consultation with the Attorney General,
shall appoint as members of the Task Force such employees of
the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice
as the Secretary considers to be appropriate. The Secretary
shall designate 1 member of the Task Force to serve as
chairperson of the Task Force.
(b) Hearings.--The Task Force shall conduct hearings to
review the lessening of competition among purchasers of
livestock, poultry, and unprocessed agricultural commodities
in the United States and shall include in such hearings
review of the following matters:
(1) The enforcement of particular Federal laws relating to
competition.
(2) The concentration and vertical integration of the
business operations of such purchasers.
(3) Discrimination and transparency in prices paid by
such purchasers to producers of livestock, poultry, and
unprocessed agricultural commodities in the United States.
(4) The economic protection and bargaining rights of
producers who raise livestock and poultry under contracts.
(5) Marketing innovations and alternatives available to
producers of livestock, poultry, and unprocessed agricultural
commodities in the United States.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the last member of
the Task Force is appointed, the Task Force shall submit, to
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate, a report containing the findings and
recommendations of the Task Force for appropriate
administrative and legislative action.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, the first amendment that I offer today would
direct the Comptroller General of the GAO to conduct a study with
respect to determining how producer income would be affected by
updating yield bases. The yield base is one part of the equation to
determining a farmer's assistance payment. Updating yield bases in this
bill is crucial to the corn farmers of South Dakota. Currently, yield
bases are taken from yield information from 1981 to 1985. Corn yield
technology has changed significantly in the past 20 years in South
Dakota. As a consequence, corn farmers in my State believe that the
next farm bill should include language that provides for updated yield
bases to accommodate the vast increase of base yields that producers in
South Dakota have seen in recent decades.
The study I am proposing would detail, first, whether crop yields
have increased over the past 20 years for both program crops and
oilseeds; second, whether program payments would be disbursed
differently in this Act if yield bases were updated; third, what impact
this Act's target prices with updated yield bases would have on
producer income; and, finally, what impact lower target prices with
updated yield bases would have on producer income compared to this Act.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that Members support this amendment to
study how producer income would be affected by updating yield bases.
The second amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I offer has to do with
extending the Farmable Wetlands Pilot Program through the life of this
farm bill. The Farmable Wetlands Pilot Program is a six-State voluntary
program to restore up to 500,000 acres of farmable wetlands and
associated buffers by improving the land's hydrology and vegetation.
Eligible producers in South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota,
Montana and Nebraska can enroll eligible lands in the pilot through the
Conservation Reserve Program. The pilot was authorized by the fiscal
year 2001 Agricultural Appropriations Act.
Eligible acreage includes farmed and prior converted wetlands that
have been impacted by farming activities. Eligibility requirements
include that land must be cropland planted to agriculture commodities 3
of the 10 most recent crop years and be physically and legally capable
of being planted in a normal manner to an agricultural commodity; a
wetland must be five acres or less; a buffer may not exceed the greater
of three times the size of the wetland or an average of 150 feet on
either side of the wetland; and participants must agree to restore the
hydrology of the wetland to the maximum extent possible.
[[Page H6272]]
Producers in my State have had an enthusiastic enrollment thus far
and have requested that the program be extended through the life of
this farm bill. While doing so, my amendment also opens the program to
all States.
I ask that Members support this amendment to continue the
effectiveness of the Conservation Reserve Program as it pertains to
farmable wetlands.
The third amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I ask be approved directs the
Secretary of Agriculture to appoint an interagency task force on
agricultural competition. The task force would review the lessening of
competition among purchasers of livestock, poultry and unprocessed
agricultural commodities in the United States by appraising, one, the
enforcement of particular Federal laws relating to competition; the
concentration and vertical integration of the business operations of
such purchasers; discrimination and transparency in prices paid by such
purchasers to producers of commodities; the economic protection and
bargaining rights of producers who raise livestock and poultry under
contracts; and marketing innovations and alterations available to
producers.
During my tenure in Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary held a
hearing at my request on competitiveness in the agriculture and food
marketing industry. At that hearing and in subsequent conversations
with other Members of Congress, I proposed that Congress thoroughly
examine existing antitrust statutes and consider how those statutes are
being applied and whether agencies and courts are following the laws
according to congressional intent.
The very purpose of our antitrust statutes, namely, the Sherman Act
and the Clayton Act, is to protect our suppliers from anticompetitive
practices that result from market dominance. There are laws on the
books that prohibit monopolistic or anticompetitive practices.
Unfortunately for family farmers, these laws are not preventing such
activities from occurring.
For example, the hog industry has consolidated rapidly, with the four
largest firms' shares of hog slaughter reaching 57 percent in 1998
compared with 32 percent in 1980. In the cattle sector, the four
largest beef packers accounted for 79 percent of all cattle slaughtered
in 1998 compared with 36 percent in 1980. Additionally, four firms
control nearly 62 percent of flour milling, four firms control 57
percent of dry corn milling, four firms control 74 percent of wet corn
milling, and four firms control nearly 80 percent of soybean crushing.
From 1984 to 1998, consumer food prices increased 3 percent while the
prices paid to farmers for their products plunged by 36 percent. The
impact of this price disparity is highlighted by reports of record
profits among agribusiness firms at the very same time that
agricultural producers are suffering through an economic crisis.
Mr. Chairman, with that said, I ask that Members support this
amendment to create an interagency task force on agricultural
competition to recommend appropriate administrative and legislative
action on this very important issue to agriculture across this country.
I ask that these amendments be approved en bloc.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendments.
I think the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) should be
commended for offering these three amendments. All are subjects of
great concern and interest to my own constituency. As I held my
agricultural town hall meetings, all of these issues were brought up as
important issues that should be addressed. The gentleman from South
Dakota, in offering No. 58, specifically on wetlands, has a major
impact, as he mentioned, not only on his State, but several States
including my own. And No. 60, which is an issue directed against the
lack of competition in the marketing area and in the input area, is
particularly important to our constituents.
I think these amendments deserve very strong support.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of that part of the amendment of the
gentleman from South Dakota which directs the Secretary of Agriculture
to appoint an interagency task force on agricultural competition.
Family farmers in Indiana often say they feel squeezed by the growing
power and size of agribusinesses. They say they have fewer and fewer
choices on where and with whom to do business. A farmer often has no
choice but to buy seeds, fertilizer and chemicals from a division of
the same company that will end up buying the farmer's finished crops at
harvest. Farmers and ranchers also say that their bargaining power is
eroding more every day as big changes take place in American
agriculture.
As agribusinesses merge and become vertically integrated, America's
family farmers worry there is no room for them in the future of
agriculture. It is alarming enough that there are one-third as many
farms now as there were in the 1930s. There were 7 million farms in the
United States in the 1930s. Now there are about 2.2 million farms, a
decline of 70 percent in 70 years. Now farmers fear they are losing
control of their ability to make regular, routine decisions about their
own small businesses.
The facts seem to bear out the concerns of America's farmers and
ranchers. The five largest beef packers account for about 83 percent of
the cattle slaughter. The four largest corn exporters control nearly 70
percent of that market. Just 50 producers market half of all the pigs
raised in this country.
Farmers and ranchers are the heart of America's rural communities,
and they feel they are being ignored by the law. It is time their
concerns about agribusinesses are addressed. If the big companies are
engaging in anticompetitive practices, our farmers and ranchers deserve
to know the facts. And if agribusinesses are doing business fairly,
farmers and ranchers should know that as well. The interagency task
force on agricultural competition would review the lessening of
competition in agriculture and recommend appropriate administrative and
legislative action.
For that reason, I ask that Members support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendments offered
by the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
The amendments were agreed to.
Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 6 and Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr.
Bereuter
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask unanimous
consent that they be taken up en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendment No. 4, amendment No. 6 and amendment No. 7
offered by Mr. Bereuter:
Amendment No. 4: In section 212(a)--
(1) strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) strike the last period at the end of paragraph (2) and
insert ``; and''; and
(3) add at the end the following:
(3) by adding after and below the end the following flush
sentence:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence (but subject to
subsection (c)), the Secretary may not include in the program
established under this subchapter any land that has not been
in production for at least 4 years, unless the land is in the
program as of the effective date of this sentence.''.
____
Amendment No. 6: At the end of title IX, insert the
following new section:
SEC. ____. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF AND FUNDING FOR
THE GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
ADMINISTRATION.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to enhance the capability of the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration to monitor,
investigate, and pursue the competitive implications of
structural changes in the meat packing industry. Sums are
specifically earmarked to hire litigating attorneys to allow
the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
to more comprehensively and effectively pursue its
enforcement activities.
____
Amendment No. 7: At the end of title V, insert the
following:
SEC. ____. AUTHORITY TO MAKE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY GUARANTEED
LOANS FOR FARMER-OWNED PROJECTS THAT ADD VALUE
TO OR PROCESS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.
Section 310B(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(1)) is amended by inserting
``(and in areas other than rural communities, in the
[[Page H6273]]
case of insured loans, if a majority of the project involved
is owned by individuals who reside and have farming
operations in rural communities, and the project adds value
to or processes agricultural commodities)'' after ``rural
communities''.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment our colleagues from
Texas, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture,
for their efforts in bringing us important legislation, and one, I
think, that will be even further improved by a variety of amendments
that they have agreed to accept. I have three that I offer today at
this point.
The first relates to the Conservation Reserve Program. By virtually
any measure, the CRP has proven to be enormously successful. It is a
national investment which provides dividends to environmentalists,
farmers, sportsmen, conservationists, the general public and wildlife.
The CRP actually dwarfs other conservation and wildlife protection
efforts. This Member is pleased that it has been reauthorized and
expanded.
However, this amendment is offered to close a loophole which was
brought to this Member's attention at a recent listening session in
northeast Nebraska. Quite simply, this amendment ensures that the CRP
be used for its intended purposes. This straightforward amendment
states that only land which has been in production for 4 consecutive
years is eligible for the CRP, unless the land is already in the
program.
We are finding that a variety of people are using this to buy land
which they will use for acreage, leaving it in the CRP a short period
of time. I understand that the staff may work in conference to perfect
this, if necessary, but I believe it is an important change and closes
a loophole unintendedly created within the program.
{time} 1115
The second amendment that I offer in No. 6 relates to the Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards part of the USDA. It is based on
legislation introduced in the other body by the distinguished gentleman
from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. Clearly, the issue of concentration in
agriculture, particularly in the meat packing industry, is a growing
concern. There is simply too little competition, and Congress should
work to correct this problem.
The report issued by the General Accounting Office last year found
significant shortcomings in the composition of the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration's, GIPSA, investigative teams.
This amendment helps to address these concerns.
During listening sessions in this Member's district and in other
meetings, producers have made it clear that the consolidation and
concentration of firms that sell supplies to farmers and among those
that buy their crops and livestock is hurting family farm operations.
This is an issue which is mentioned over and over in a concerted and
emphatic manner. The support for their views often may be anecdotal,
but I believe it is a concern so widely and strongly expressed that the
House Committee on Agriculture and the Congress must not ignore it.
Mr. Chairman, the third amendment that I offer en bloc, No. 7,
relates to value-added loans. It enhances the USDA's Rural Business
Industry Guaranteed Loan Program and promotes value-added products.
The amendment simply expands the loan program to areas other than
rural communities if a majority of those individuals involved in the
project reside and have farming operations in rural communities, and
the project adds value to or processes agriculture commodities. This
would remove a stumbling block for worthwhile projects which currently
are prohibited even though they would benefit our Nation's farmers.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is critically important that Congress assist
these projects designed to add value to agriculture commodities.
Producers need to be able to move up the agriculture and food-producing
and marketing chain in order to capture a larger share of the profits
generated from processing their raw commodities. This amendment is a
small, but I think positive, step toward that goal. It removes a
barrier to receiving a business and industry guaranteed loan, while
maintaining important safeguards to help ensure that the program is
used as intended.
This Member urges his colleagues to support this amendment and the
other two.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding and
his agreement to roll these into one vote, therefore conserving some
time. We certainly looked at the amendment. The gentleman makes some
very good points. The committee would be in a position to accept the
amendments.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter).
The amendments were agreed to.
Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mrs. Morella
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Morella:
At the end of title IX, insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. ENFORCEMENT OF THE HUMANE METHODS OF SLAUGHTER ACT
OF 1958.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
(1) Public demand for passage of Public Law 85-765 (7
U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; commonly known as the ``Humane Methods
of Slaughter Act of 1958'') was so great that when President
Eisenhower was asked at a press conference if he would sign
the bill, he replied, ``If I went by mail, I'd think no one
was interested in anything but humane slaughter''.
(2) The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 requires
that animals be rendered insensible to pain when they are
slaughtered.
(3) Scientific evidence indicates that treating animals
humanely results in tangible economic benefits.
(4) The United States Animal Health Association passed a
resolution at a meeting in October 1998 to encourage strong
enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958
and reiterated support for the resolution at a meeting in
2000.
(5) The Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for fully
enforcing the Act, including monitoring compliance by the
slaughtering industry.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Agriculture should fully enforce Public Law
85-765 (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; commonly known as the ``Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958'') by ensuring that humane
methods in the slaughter of livestock--
(1) prevent needless suffering;
(2) result in safer and better working conditions for
persons engaged in the slaughtering industry;
(3) bring about improvement of products and economies in
slaughtering operations; and
(4) produce other benefits for producers, processors, and
consumers that tend to expedite an orderly flow of livestock
and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce.
(c) Policy of the United States.--It is the policy of the
United States that the slaughtering of livestock and the
handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be
carried out only by humane methods, as provided by Public Law
85-765 (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; commonly known as the ``Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958'').
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is just a simple sense of
Congress that reaffirms our support for the Humane Methods of Slaughter
Act, which has been law since 1958. I want to thank the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) also for letting me speak on this
noncontroversial amendment at this time.
This law that we passed in 1958 intends to prevent the needless
suffering of animals that are slaughtered for food. It states that
animals must be in a state of complete unconsciousness throughout the
butchering process, and under no conditions can an animal ever be
dragged while conscious or disabled. In short, slaughter-bound animals
are never to be rushed, beaten, or tortured while they are still alive.
The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act was strengthened in 1978 to
empower USDA inspectors to stop the slaughter line if they observe any
cruelty. USDA has the power to enforce humane slaughter regulations.
The American people expect them to uphold this law, and supporting this
amendment will demonstrate that Congress continues to believe that
animals being slaughtered should be treated humanely.
[[Page H6274]]
In addition, this sense of Congress supports the full enforcement of
existing law by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service. Through full cooperation and disclosure, we can
assure the American people that the meat that they buy was slaughtered
in a humane way. In the words of Gandhi, ``The greatness of a nation
and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are
treated.''
All we are asking is that we enforce the laws that we made. I
encourage all Members to support this amendment.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) for
allowing me to be able to offer this.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for
working with us to develop her amendment. This is a very important
matter that we take very seriously. We appreciate the work that the
gentlewoman is doing on it. The committee would be in a position to
accept the amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his leadership and comments.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her
concern in this area. I join in the support of the chairman for her
amendment. I thank her for her interest in this.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
At the end of title IX (page 354, after line 16), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 932. PROHIBITION ON INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF ANIMALS FOR
ANIMAL FIGHTING.
(a) Prohibition on Interstate Movement of Animals for
Animal Fighting.--Section 26(d) of the Animal Welfare Act (7
U.S.C. 2156(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Activities Not Subject to Prohibition.--This section
does not apply to the selling, buying, transporting, or
delivery of an animal in interstate or foreign commerce for
any purpose, so long as the purpose does not include
participation of the animal in an animal fighting venture.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
In the table of contents, after the item relating to
section 931 (page 8, before line 1), insert the following new
item:
Sec. 932. Prohibition on interstate movement of animals for animal
fighting.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment in
association with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and
appreciate his leadership and support on this important issue.
One area of overwhelming consensus on the part of the American public
is for the protection of animals, and there is an almost universal
aversion to barbaric sports like dog fighting and cockfighting. We have
done our job as it relates to dogs. We have not, as it relates to the
practice of cockfighting. The majority of the American public
overwhelmingly opposes it, and this House voted to ban its use 25 years
ago. Yet it still lingers on.
Male chickens are bred to display traits of hostility. They are
trained to fight, and then they are armed with pikes or knives to maim
other roosters. It is calculated to maximize the bloodshed.
Sadly, we are in today the third century of a struggle to eliminate
this cruel and barbaric practice. Much progress has in fact been made;
not here in Congress, but at the State level. It began in the 19th
century with the State of Massachusetts in 1837, and went on through
the 1800's with States like Mississippi and Arkansas. Today, 47 States
have outlawed the practice, and there is strong evidence that the
citizens of the three remaining States are likewise strongly opposed.
In all likelihood, there will be another one or two States that will
outlaw this through their legislatures, and, if not, then by the people
themselves.
The purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure that the
Federal Government is not complicit in aiding and abetting this
barbaric practice. The Federal Government has no business undermining
the laws in the 47 States by permitting the transfer of these birds
across State lines.
There are a couple of problems with the situation that we face right
now. In the States where the practice is legal, just the three of them,
the cockfighting activities, the arenas, the pits, have developed
around the borders of the State. So like in Texas, people come across
the border into Oklahoma and engage in the practice. It makes it easy
for people to undermine the activities in a State like Texas by going
to Louisiana or to Oklahoma.
The practice of moving these birds across State lines raises another
difficult problem, because law enforcement officials have to deal with
the consequences of what is happening in the other 47 States where it
is not legal. People who are involved, they claim they are just raising
and training the birds, not involved in actual cockfighting activities
itself. But time and time and time again, the practice activities
degenerate into actual illegal cockfighting activities, and I will not
take the time now to enter into the Record example after example where
these activities are taking place. And it is not just the barbaric act
on the animals themselves that has been outlawed, but there is a great
deal of illegal gambling; and there are time and time again violent
acts that are associated with these clandestine activities. That is why
over 100 law enforcement agencies have urged the enactment of this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, Members of this body have recognized that it is time to
step up and be counted. Last session we had a majority of Members who
cosponsored legislation, with the lead sponsor being our colleague, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). For some reason, we could not
bring that legislation forward. This session we have over 200 Members
who have already cosponsored legislation, but somehow it has been left
out of this bill.
I strongly urge that we correct this oversight now. Every major law
enforcement agency in my State is supporting the measure because it
will make their job easier while stopping this barbaric practice. I
suggest that we move to approve this amendment now, to support the
humane treatment of animals, and support the efforts of our law
enforcement officials. We do not have to wait for legislation that is
somehow lingering. We can put it into this bill now.
We do not allow transportation across State lines of dogs for
fighting purposes. We should do the same thing as it relates to
cockfighting. Take the Federal Government out of the business of aiding
and abetting this 3-century legacy of shame.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know of anyone who is supportive of the
inhumane treatment of animals, and it is something which obviously
there are many occasions in which one can point to in which that
occurs. But the concern that the Committee on Agriculture has is a
number of unintended consequences that this may have in a more broad-
reaching impact and implication.
We held a hearing on this issue in September of last year to
determine the need for the legislation. It was very apparent during
testimony, we were trying to look at what other implications might be
brought into it unintentionally; and from questioning many witnesses,
there are issues and concerns that have not been resolved.
Among these issues were the effectiveness of the legislative
proposal, the impact such legislation could have on transportation of
birds for purposes other than fighting, and the implications for animal
health programs.
If the amendment was enacted, someone wishing to get under the
legislation that the law would create could simply indicate that they
are not shipping the birds to Oklahoma, but instead they were going to
the Philippines.
[[Page H6275]]
The amendment would have a chilling effect on transportation of other
birds. Breeders and exhibitors of fancy birds have testified that
airlines, shipping companies, et cetera, were not willing or able to
distinguish between live birds for fighting or those from exhibition,
kids in 4-H clubs or FFA clubs or others for show purposes that happen
many times between States.
Many poultry breeders, including those breeding game birds,
voluntarily participate in the National Poultry Improvement Program.
This program is a joint effort between industry, the Federal and State
officials to establish standards for evaluating poultry breeding stock
and hatchery products for freedom from hatchery dissemination and egg
dissemination diseases. The National Poultry Improvement Program's
mission is to certify all baby chicks, poults and hatching eggs for
interstate and international movement. Criminalizing interstate
shipment of game birds may dissuade game breeders from participating in
the program, which could have certainly some impact on the industry.
This is a $25 billion-a-year industry. So there are the concerns that
were raised by people in the business, and I will say people who do not
engage in game fighting, that I think are very legitimate, that I think
in fact warrant further discussion and clarification, so that if broad
blanket of trying to reach a number of folks that I think the
gentleman's intent is to reach, we do not also encompass many, many
others who in fact are interested.
{time} 1130
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in yielding. I have another amendment at the desk that would close this
loophole for the international transport, not just for fighting birds,
but also for dogs. We do not permit fighting dogs to be transported
intrastate.
Would the gentleman agree that the adoption of the other amendment
that we have pending would be able to close this loophole for them all?
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does nothing to
address the issue of concern about those people who are trying to ship
totally legitimately poultry within the United States; that may be a
totally legitimate shipment that would not be involved in game fighting
that would, in fact, come under this. That is the primary concern I
have.
The point that I was simply trying to make, and certainly maybe his
second amendment does address that, relative to whether it is
intrastate or international, it probably would be addressed by his
second amendment, but the other concerns that I mention, in fact, would
not be addressed.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, and I appreciate the
gentleman's concern, but we have been able to successfully ship dogs
around the country; they have been able to have dogs for show purposes,
and they have been outlawed for some 50 years, meaning transport for
fighting purposes. Why could we not do the same thing, have the same
protection for poultry that we have for dogs?
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, certainly there is
probably some merit to what the gentleman said. I think, however, it is
much more identifiable which dogs potentially are going to be used for
fighting purposes than there are for game birds.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment.
It is a narrowly drawn measure that eliminates a one-phrase loophole in
the Animal Welfare Act. Simply put, it bars the shipment of birds for
the purpose of fighting. It is clear. It is not ambiguous. I think that
it cannot be used to do anything but what we are saying it should do.
Now, I know that if it puts a slight burden on any other aspect of
the industry, there are people who are going to be opposed to it and, I
assume, or I suppose that that is proper from their point of view; but
I think that it is not that much of a burden that it would prevent this
amendment from being effective, from actually doing what it simply says
we should do, that these birds should not be shipped across State lines
for this horrendous purpose. It does not affect the ownership of the
use of birds for show or the legitimate transport of birds for
agricultural purposes. It strikes the provision that permits
transporting birds for the purpose of fighting, the purpose of
fighting, to States in which cockfighting is legal.
This particular activity is rampant, in part, because of the Federal
loophole that allows birds to be transported for this activity. This
loophole will be closed if this passes and, up to this point, it has
served to undermine local law enforcement in trying to enforce their
own State laws against this practice. Illegal and violent activities
often accompany cockfights, such things as gambling, money laundering,
assaults, and even more serious, murders. Most of the money made in
this activity is illegal. Gambling tax evasion is rampant. The activity
itself of cockfighting is inhumane and barbaric. It is not just a human
issue, it is a serious law enforcement issue. Over 100 law enforcement
agencies have endorsed this amendment.
This is not an attack on a way of life but, rather, an attack on a
criminal activity and a way to help law enforcement do their own job in
their own States.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Blumenauer-Tancredo
amendment. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this inhumane
issue of cockfighting to the floor.
The amendment seeks to eliminate a one-phrase loophole in the Federal
Animal Welfare Act by barring any interstate shipment of birds for
fighting purposes. I understand the concerns of the chairman, but I
think they can be worked out.
Currently, 47 States have outlawed cockfighting, but a Federal
loophole allows the shipment of birds from States where cockfighting is
illegal to any State where it is legal. This loophole is exploited to
conduct illegal activity around the country.
I want to stress that this amendment would not affect the ownership
or use of birds for show purposes or the transport of birds for
legitimate agricultural purposes. This amendment would protect States'
rights by removing this loophole which currently undermines the ability
of State and local law enforcement agencies to enforce their bans on
animal fighting.
The amendment has the endorsement, as has been mentioned, of 98 law
enforcement agencies, 40 newspapers across the country, and also no
mainstream agricultural organizations have expressed any opposition to
the legislation.
Cockfighting is not a sport. Cockfighting promotes illegal gambling
and animal cruelty. At cockfights, birds are dragged to increase their
aggression and drugged; they are affixed with knives to their legs,
placed in a pit; and unable to escape the pit, the birds mutilate each
other.
I am sure my colleagues will all agree that fighting dogs for
entertainment is inhumane and cruel. Surely, cockfighting is inhumane
and cruel. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, in Texas, cockfighting is illegal, and several law
enforcement organizations say that prohibiting transport to other
States will help them crack down on illegal operations. That is our
law.
I would like to ask a question of the authors of this amendment,
though.
In a situation in which it is legal within a State to have
cockfighting, under this amendment, if it should pass, would it
prohibit a raiser of fighting chickens in a State in which it is legal
to ship to a foreign country in which it is also legal?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, it is not.
[[Page H6276]]
That is why I have a subsequent amendment designated number 9 which I
will offer that would make it illegal to transport these birds out of
the United States.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess this is what
is troubling. Personally, I oppose cockfighting. I mean that is our
State law, and that is my personal feeling. But I am troubled, as so
often is the case, when we pass amendments that do that which we all
want to do, there are unintended consequences. It seems to me that if
we have a State in which an activity is legal, whether I agree with it
or not is immaterial, so long as it is constitutional. I am troubled by
this wording and unintended consequences that might then be interpreted
in other areas in which none of us can even think about right now.
But if the gentleman is going to say to a State that has made the
determination as yet that it is still legal and then we are going to
begin prosecuting legal activities within a State that ship to another
country, we are getting into interstate commerce; and I am not sure all
of this is what the gentleman intends to do.
I raise this question. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification of
his intent, but I think it points out that there can be some very, very
serious unintended consequences. As I say, in Texas we outlawed it a
long time ago; you cannot do it legally in Texas, and I agree with
that. I agree with our law enforcement that are having a difficult time
doing what the gentleman is trying to prohibit, but I also worry about
the unintended consequences.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern
about unintended consequences. The issue that the gentleman talks about
in terms of the export of these animals out of the country, which is
perfectly legal, is one of those unintended consequences. The reason I
will be offering another amendment is right now, it is legal to export
from the United States dogs that are bred for fighting. I do not think
anybody here agrees with it. It is illegal in the United States to do
it. It is an unintended consequence.
What we are attempting to do with this amendment that is before us
now is to close the unintended consequence in terms of how it moves
right now across State lines, and amendment No. 9 would close the
loophole not just for fighting birds, but for dogs which I think no
Member of this assembly believes we should do, and it was one of the
unintended consequences of not writing the Animal Welfare law properly
whenever that was enacted.
I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and I will be offering an
amendment to try and correct that.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his clarification. I am not an attorney, but there is something
that just raised its head regarding constitutionality and individual
rights, whether we agree with them or not. How many times do we stand
on this floor and have individuals say, I do not agree with this, but
the Constitution of the United States provides that it happens. Until
we change laws, I am troubled by the fact that we here are about to
supersede our wisdom on another State's interpretation of what is legal
and illegal. As I said, in Texas, we made the decision. But I think we
are trying to make a decision for a few other States in which I
question whether that is something we want to do.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Bereuter
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Bereuter:
At the end of subtitle B of title I (page 66, after line
3), insert the following new section:
SEC. 132. ALTERNATIVE LOAN RATES UNDER FLEXIBLE FALLOW
PROGRAM.
(a) Definition of Total Planted Acreage.--In this section,
the term ``total planted acreage'' means the cropland acreage
of a producer that for the 2000 crop year was--
(1) planted to a covered commodity;
(2) prevented from being planted to a covered commodity; or
(3) fallow as part of a fallow rotation practice with
respect to a covered commodity, as determined by the
Secretary.
(b) Election To Participate.--In lieu of receiving a loan
rate under section 122 with respect to production eligible
for a loan under section 121, a producer may elect to
participate in a flexible fallow program for any of the 2002
through 2011 crops under which annually--
(1) the producer determines which acres of the total
planted acreage are assigned to a specific covered commodity;
(2) the producer determines--
(A) the projected percentage reduction rate of production
of the specific covered commodity based on the acreage
assigned to the covered commodity under paragraph (1); and
(B) the acreage of the total planted acreage of the
producer to be set aside under subparagraph (A), regardless
of whether the acreage is on the same farm as the acreage
planted to the specific covered commodity;
(3) based on the projected percentage reduction rate of
production as a result of the acreage set aside under
paragraph (2), the producer receives the loan rate for each
covered commodity produced by the producer, as determined
under subsection (c); and
(4) the acreage planted to covered commodities for harvest
and set aside under this section is limited to the total
planted acreage of the producer.
(c) Loan Rates Under Program.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in the
case of a producer of a covered commodity that elects to
participate in the flexible fallow program under this
section, the loan rate for a marketing assistance loan under
section 121 for a crop of the covered commodity shall be
based on the projected percentage reduction rate of
production determined by the producer under subsection
(b)(2), in accordance with the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Percentage Reduction Upland Cotton Loan Rate ($/ Rice Loan Rate ($/
Rate Corn Commodity Rate ($/bushel) Wheat Loan Rate ($/bushel) Soybean Loan Rate ($/bushel) pound) hundredweight)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0% 1.89 2.75 4.72 0.5192 6.50
1% 1.91 2.78 4.77 0.5268 6.60
2% 1.93 2.81 4.81 0.5344 6.70
3% 1.95 2.83 4.86 0.5420 6.80
4% 1.97 2.86 4.91 0.5496 6.90
5% 1.99 2.89 4.96 0.5572 7.00
6% 2.01 2.92 5.01 0.5648 7.10
7% 2.03 2.95 5.06 0.5724 7.20
8% 2.05 2.98 5.11 0.5800 7.30
9% 2.07 3.01 5.16 0.5876 7.40
10% 2.09 3.04 5.21 0.5952 7.50
11% 2.12 3.08 5.29 0.6028 7.60
12% 2.15 3.13 5.36 0.6104 7.70
13% 2.18 3.17 5.43 0.6180 7.80
14% 2.21 3.22 5.51 0.6256 7.90
15% 2.24 3.27 5.58 0.6332 8.00
16% 2.28 3.31 5.65 0.6408 8.10
17% 2.31 3.36 5.73 0.6484 8.20
18% 2.34 3.41 5.81 0.6560 8.30
19% 2.37 3.46 5.88 0.6636 8.40
20% 2.41 3.51 5.96 0.6712 8.50
21% 2.44 3.55 6.04 0.6788 8.60
22% 2.47 3.60 6.12 0.6864 8.70
23% 2.51 3.65 6.19 0.6940 8.80
24% 2.54 3.70 6.27 0.7016 8.90
25% 2.57 3.75 6.35 0.7092 9.00
[[Page H6277]]
26% 2.61 3.80 6.43 0.7168 9.10
27% 2.64 3.85 6.51 0.7244 9.20
28% 2.68 3.90 6.60 0.7320 9.30
29% 2.71 3.95 6.68 0.7396 9.40
30% 2.75 4.01 6.76 0.7472 9.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) County average yields.--
(A) In general.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance
loan made to a producer for a crop of a covered commodity
under paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to the
production of the crop of the covered commodity by the
producer in a quantity that does not exceed the historical
county average yield for the covered commodity established by
the National Agricultural Statistics Service, adjusted for
long-term yield trends.
(B) Excess production.--The loan rate for a marketing
assistance loan made to a producer for a crop of a covered
commodity under paragraph (1) with respect to the production
of the crop of the covered commodity in excess of the
historical county average yield for the covered commodity
described in subparagraph (A) shall be equal to the loan rate
established for a 0% projected percentage reduction rate for
the covered commodity under paragraph (1).
(C) Disasters.--
(i) In general.--If the production of a crop of a covered
commodity by a producer is less than the historical county
average yield for the covered commodity described in
subparagraph (A) as a result of damaging weather, an
insurable peril, or related condition, the producer may
receive a payment on the lost production that shall equal the
difference between--
(I) the maximum quantity of covered commodity that could
have been designated for the loan rate authorized under this
section for the producer; and
(II) the quantity of covered commodity the producer was
able to produce and commercially market.
(ii) Calculation of payment.--The payment described in
clause (i) shall be equal to the loan deficiency payment the
producer could have received on the lost production on any
date, selected by the producer, on which a loan deficiency
payment was available for that crop of the covered commodity.
(3) Other covered commodities.--In the case of a producer
of a covered commodity not covered by paragraphs (1) and (2)
that elects to participate in the flexible fallow program
under this section, the loan rate for a marketing assistance
loan under section 121 for the crop of the covered commodity
shall be based on--
(A) in the case of grain sorghum, barley, and oats, such
level as the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable in
relation to the rate that loans are made available for corn,
taking into consideration the feeding value of the commodity
in relation to corn;
(B) in the case of extra long staple cotton, such level as
the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable; and
(C) in the case of oilseeds other than soybeans, such level
as the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable in
relation to the loan rate available for soybeans, except that
the rate for the oilseeds (other than cottonseed) shall not
be less than the rate established for soybeans on a per-pound
basis for the same crop.
(d) Conservation Use of Set-Aside Acreage.--To be eligible
for a loan rate under this section, a producer shall devote
all of the acreage set aside under this section to a
conservation use approved by the Secretary and manage the
set-aside acreage using management practices designed to
enhance soil conservation and wildlife habitat. The Secretary
shall prescribe the approved management practices for a
county in consultation with the relevant State technical
committee.
(1) Limited Grazing.--The Secretary may permit limited
grazing on the set-aside acreage when the grazing is
incidental to the gleaning of crop residues on adjacent
fields.
(e) Certification.--To be eligible to participate in the
flexible fallow program for any of the 2002 through 2011
crops, a producer shall certify to the Secretary (by farm
serial number) the total planted acreage assigned, planted,
and set aside with respect to each covered commodity.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this important amendment would permit
farmers to voluntarily set aside a portion of their total crop acreage
in exchange for higher loan rates on their remaining production.
This innovative proposal, which goes by the name of Flexible Fallow
in Farm Country represents an effort to maintain planning flexibility,
while improving on other areas of our farm policy. As I said, it is a
voluntary program. It is an annual conservation use feature. It would
be added to the farm bill's loan rate provisions.
If a farmer wants to operate under the new farm bill conditions, that
opportunity remains. If a farmer needs greater leverage over crop
production and marketing, Flexible Fallow would make that possible. The
amendment would allow producers to conserve up to 30 percent or set
aside up to 30 percent of their planted acreage on a crop-by-crop
basis.
This approach was suggested during one of the agriculture advisory
meetings this Member held in his district; and it, in fact, is
considered in other States. The proposal, I think, has significant
grass-roots support, because agricultural producers recognize the need
for change and the need for more options to increase farm revenue.
Another very important point to stress is that this proposal would
allow producers to make this decision annually. As a result, the land
taken out of production would not send a long-term signal to our global
competitors about our future production. It would leave producer
countries like Brazil or Argentina guessing as to the impact of the
collective decision of the American farmers who choose to participate
in the Flexible Fallow program from year to year. They have the
capacity to bring substantial amounts of land into production in those
countries to replace ours in export markets, something we certainly
should seek to avoid.
This Flexible Fallow program is a market-responsive proposal. When
commodity prices are low, farmers could choose to voluntarily conserve
or set aside more land in exchange for a higher loan rate. As prices
improve, more land would come back into production.
In August of 1999, the Food and Agriculture Policy Research
Institute, FAPRI, released an analysis of the Flexible Fallow program.
FAPRI is a well-respected, dual-university research program involving
the University of Missouri-Columbia and Iowa State University and
joined by a consortium of four other universities.
{time} 1145
Its analysis found that crop farmers' annual net income would
increase $5.4 million over the 2000 through 2008 period.
The FAPRI analysis stated, ``Reduced plantings translate into
stronger crop prices under the Flexible Fallow scenario. The largest
impacts occur in the 2000 to 2002 period as more producers take
advantage of the land-idling provisions.''
The Flexible Fallow Program also promotes conservation. The
legislation requires the idle land to be devoted to a conservation use.
Producers would use management practices designed to enhance soil
conservation and wildlife habitat.
This Member is aware of the projected costs or estimated costs of
this program. They are not inconsequential, but I believe that the
funds made available under this legislation, authorized by it, could be
better used if part of those funds were shifted over to the Flexible
Fallow Program.
That is a matter of choice, a matter of policy. I happen to think
this is the right way to go and as do many of my farmers.
Mr. Chairman, American farmers continue to face enormously difficult
times. Producers continue to struggle with plentiful supplies and low
prices. While there are no easy answers, there are some steps we can
take to help farmers. A lot of that is being done here today as part of
this bill.
This Flexible Fallow amendment provides one important alternative. I
urge my colleagues to support it.
Point of Order
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
will state it.
[[Page H6278]]
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order under
302(f) of the Budget Act.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I concede the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded and
sustained based on estimates provided by the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
if he might know, what would be the administration's position on this
amendment, were it not out of order because of budget reasons?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Texas,
I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for that answer.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
At the end of title IX (page 354, after line 16), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 932. PENALTIES AND FOREIGN COMMERCE PROVISIONS OF THE
ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.
(a) Penalties and Foreign Commerce Provisions of the Animal
Welfare Act.--Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.
2156) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) by inserting ``Penalties.--'' after ``(e)'';
(B) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$15,000''; and
(C) by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``2 years''; and
(2) in subsection (g)(2)(B), by inserting at the end before
the semicolon the following: ``or from any State into any
foreign country''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
In the table of contents, after the item relating to
section 931 (page 8, before line 1), insert the following new
item:
Sec. 932. Penalties and foreign commerce provisions of the Animal
Welfare Act.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I did want to follow up on the
important points raised by the chairman and the ranking member dealing
with unintended consequences and other issues that we have in terms of
dealing with activities of animals for fighting purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to deal with the concerns,
legitimate concerns, that have been raised. It would close a loophole
in the Animal Welfare Act that allows for the shipment of fighting dogs
or birds from the United States to foreign countries, and it increases
the penalties for promoting illegal animal fighting venues.
Mr. Chairman, the current penalties are 25 years old and are in dire
need of update. It increases the maximum penalties from 1 year and a
$5,000 fine to 2 years and a $15,000.
For comparison, Mr. Chairman, the Federal law passed last year
prohibiting animal crush videos provided for maximum penalties of 5
years and $250,000 fine; and in most States there are provisions for a
maximum of 5 years imprisonment for animal fighting, with some States'
penalties as high as 10 years or $100,000.
With higher penalties, U.S. Attorneys are more likely to prosecute
animal fighting violations. When the Federal anti-animal fighting law
was enacted in 1976, no State made animal fighting a felony. Today, 46
States have felony provisions for animal fighting. We must increase our
quarter-century-old Federal penalties to make them work in today's
climate.
Closing the foreign commerce loophole is equally important. I
appreciate my colleague's pointing it out. In 1976, Congress added a
section to the Animal Welfare Act, section 26, to crack down on
dogfighting and cockfighting; but it did not, however, ban shipment of
dogs or birds from the United States to foreign countries. This
loophole allows shipment of fighting birds to foreign countries that
provides a smoke screen behind which illegal cockfighters operate here.
Ironically, Mr. Chairman, the United States prohibits the importing
of animals for fighting but still allows the exports of this animal; a
practice I believe may well violate international trade rules.
It is also important to note that the provisions of this amendment
apply to the practice of dogfighting. As I mentioned previously, this
is illegal in all 50 States. The same dire activities to breed the
animals for aggressive characteristics, train them, and then place them
in a pit to fight, to injure, or die applies as it does to
cockfighting. We must not allow these dogs to be bred in the United
States for shipment abroad.
Mr. Chairman, cockfighters rear birds for aggressive behavior. We
have had the same thing in terms of what happens to the dogs. These
practices are a major underground industry. It is time to close all
possible loopholes, increase the penalties, and ban shipments of
fighting dogs and birds to foreign countries.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Sherwood
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 49 offered by Mr. Sherwood:
At the end of chapter 1 of subtitle C of title I (page 75,
after line 17), insert the following new sections:
SEC. 147. NORTHEAST INTERSTATE DAIRY COMPACT.
(a) In General.--Section 147 of the Agricultural Market
Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7256) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``States'' and all that follows through ``Vermont'' and
inserting ``States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont'';
(2) by striking paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (7);
(3) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1) and, in
such paragraph, by striking ``Class III-A'' and inserting
``Class IV'';
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1), as so redesignated,
the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Compensation of special milk program.--Before the end
of each fiscal year in which a Compact price regulation is in
effect, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission
shall compensate the Secretary for the increased cost of any
milk and milk products provided under the special milk
program established under section 3 of the Child Nutrition
Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772) that results from the operation
of the Compact price regulation during the fiscal year, as
determined by the Secretary (in consultation with the
Commission) using notice and comment procedures provided in
section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
``(3) Additional state.--Ohio is the only additional State
that may join the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.'';
(5) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4) and, in
such paragraph, by striking ``the projected rate of
increase'' and all that follows through ``Secretary'' and
inserting ``the operation of the Compact price regulation
during the fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary (in
consultation with the Commission) using notice and comment
procedures provided in section 553 of title 5, United States
Code''; and
(6) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
take effect as of September 30, 2001.
SEC. 148. SOUTHERN DAIRY COMPACT.
(a) In General.--Congress consents to the Southern Dairy
Compact entered into among the States of Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia, subject to the following
conditions:
(1) Limitation of manufacturing price regulation.--The
Southern Dairy Compact Commission may not regulate Class II,
Class III, or Class IV milk used for manufacturing purposes
or any other milk, other than Class I, or fluid milk, as
defined by a Federal milk marketing order issued under
section 8c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C.
608c), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1937 (referred to in this section as a
``Federal milk marketing order'') unless Congress has first
consented to and approved such authority by a law enacted
after the date of enactment of this joint resolution.
(2) Compensation of special milk program.--Before the end
of each fiscal year in which a Compact price regulation is in
effect, the Southern Dairy Compact Commission shall
compensate the Secretary of Agriculture for the increased
cost of any milk
[[Page H6279]]
and milk products provided under the special milk program
established under section 3 of the Child Nutrition Act of
1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772) that results from the operation of the
Compact price regulation during the fiscal year, as
determined by the Secretary (in consultation with the
Commission) using notice and comment procedures provided in
section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
(3) Additional states.--Florida, Nebraska, and Texas are
the only additional States that may join the Southern Dairy
Compact, individually or otherwise.
(4) Compensation of commodity credit corporation.--Before
the end of each fiscal year in which a Compact price
regulation is in effect, the Southern Dairy Compact
Commission shall compensate the Commodity Credit Corporation
for the cost of any purchases of milk and milk products by
the Corporation that result from the operation of the Compact
price regulation during the fiscal year, as determined by the
Secretary (in consultation with the Commission) using notice
and comment procedures provided in section 553 of title 5,
United States Code.
(5) Milk marketing order administrator.--At the request of
the Southern Dairy Compact Commission, the Administrator of
the applicable Federal milk marketing order shall provide
technical assistance to the Compact Commission and be
compensated for that assistance.
(b) Compact.--The Southern Dairy Compact is substantially
as follows:
``ARTICLE I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY
``Sec. 1. Statement of purpose, findings and declaration of
policy
``The purpose of this compact is to recognize the
interstate character of the southern dairy industry and the
prerogative of the states under the United States
Constitution to form an interstate commission for the
southern region. The mission of the commission is to take
such steps as are necessary to assure the continued viability
of dairy farming in the south, and to assure consumers of an
adequate, local supply of pure and wholesome milk.
``The participating states find and declare that the dairy
industry is an essential agricultural activity of the south.
Dairy farms, and associated suppliers, marketers, processors
and retailers are an integral component of the region's
economy. Their ability to provide a stable, local supply of
pure, wholesome milk is a matter of great importance to the
health and welfare of the region.
``The participating states further find that dairy farms
are essential and they are an integral part of the region's
rural communities. The farms preserve land for agricultural
purposes and provide needed economic stimuli for rural
communities.
``In establishing their constitutional regulatory authority
over the region's fluid milk market by this compact, the
participating states declare their purpose that this compact
neither displace the federal order system nor encourage the
merging of federal orders. Specific provisions of the compact
itself set forth this basic principle.
``Designed as a flexible mechanism able to adjust to
changes in a regulated marketplace, the compact also contains
a contingency provision should the federal order system be
discontinued. In that event, the interstate commission is
authorized to regulate the marketplace in replacement of the
order system. This contingent authority does not anticipate
such a change, however, and should not be so construed. It is
only provided should developments in the market other than
establishment of this compact result in discontinuance of the
order system.
``By entering into this compact, the participating states
affirm that their ability to regulate the price which
southern dairy farmers receive for their product is essential
to the public interest. Assurance of a fair and equitable
price for dairy farmers ensures their ability to provide milk
to the market and the vitality of the southern dairy
industry, with all the associated benefits.
``Recent, dramatic price fluctuations, with a pronounced
downward trend, threaten the viability and stability of the
southern dairy region. Historically, individual state
regulatory action had been an effective emergency remedy
available to farmers confronting a distressed market. The
federal order system, implemented by the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, establishes only minimum
prices paid to producers for raw milk, without preempting the
power of states to regulate milk prices above the minimum
levels so established.
``In today's regional dairy marketplace, cooperative,
rather than individual state action is needed to more
effectively address the market disarray. Under our
constitutional system, properly authorized states acting
cooperatively may exercise more power to regulate interstate
commerce than they may assert individually without such
authority. For this reason, the participating states invoke
their authority to act in common agreement, with the consent
of Congress, under the compact clause of the Constitution.
``ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
``Sec. 2. Definitions
``For the purposes of this compact, and of any supplemental
or concurring legislation enacted pursuant thereto, except as
may be otherwise required by the context:
``(1) `Class I milk' means milk disposed of in fluid form
or as a fluid milk product, subject to further definition in
accordance with the principles expressed in subdivision (b)
of section three.
``(2) `Commission' means the Southern Dairy Compact
Commission established by this compact.
``(3) `Commission marketing order' means regulations
adopted by the commission pursuant to sections nine and ten
of this compact in place of a terminated federal marketing
order or state dairy regulation. Such order may apply
throughout the region or in any part or parts thereof as
defined in the regulations of the commission. Such order may
establish minimum prices for any or all classes of milk.
``(4) `Compact' means this interstate compact.
``(5) `Compact over-order price' means a minimum price
required to be paid to producers for Class I milk established
by the commission in regulations adopted pursuant to sections
nine and ten of this compact, which is above the price
established in federal marketing orders or by state farm
price regulations in the regulated area. Such price may apply
throughout the region or in any part or parts thereof as
defined in the regulations of the commission.
``(6) `Milk' means the lacteral secretion of cows and
includes all skim, butterfat, or other constituents obtained
from separation or any other process. The term is used in its
broadest sense and may be further defined by the commission
for regulatory purposes.
``(7) `Partially regulated plant' means a milk plant not
located in a regulated area but having Class I distribution
within such area. Commission regulations may exempt plants
having such distribution or receipts in amounts less than the
limits defined therein.
``(8) `Participating state' means a state which has become
a party to this compact by the enactment of concurring
legislation.
``(9) `Pool plant' means any milk plant located in a
regulated area.
``(10) `Region' means the territorial limits of the states
which are parties to this compact.
``(11) `Regulated area' means any area within the region
governed by and defined in regulations establishing a compact
over-order price or commission marketing order.
``(12) `State dairy regulation' means any state regulation
of dairy prices, and associated assessments, whether by
statute, marketing order or otherwise.
``Sec. 3. Rules of construction
``(a) This compact shall not be construed to displace
existing federal milk marketing orders or state dairy
regulation in the region but to supplement them. In the event
some or all federal orders in the region are discontinued,
the compact shall be construed to provide the commission the
option to replace them with one or more commission marketing
orders pursuant to this compact.
``(b) The compact shall be construed liberally in order to
achieve the purposes and intent enunciated in section one. It
is the intent of this compact to establish a basic structure
by which the commission may achieve those purposes through
the application, adaptation and development of the regulatory
techniques historically associated with milk marketing and to
afford the commission broad flexibility to devise regulatory
mechanisms to achieve the purposes of this compact. In
accordance with this intent, the technical terms which are
associated with market order regulation and which have
acquired commonly understood general meanings are not defined
herein but the commission may further define the terms used
in this compact and develop additional concepts and define
additional terms as it may find appropriate to achieve its
purposes.
``ARTICLE III. COMMISSION ESTABLISHED
``Sec. 4. Commission established
``There is hereby created a commission to administer the
compact, composed of delegations from each state in the
region. The commission shall be known as the Southern Dairy
Compact Commission. A delegation shall include not less than
three nor more than five persons. Each delegation shall
include at least one dairy farmer who is engaged in the
production of milk at the time of appointment or
reappointment, and one consumer representative. Delegation
members shall be residents and voters of, and subject to such
confirmation process as is provided for in the appointing
state. Delegation members shall serve no more than three
consecutive terms with no single term of more than four
years, and be subject to removal for cause. In all other
respects, delegation members shall serve in accordance with
the laws of the state represented. The compensation, if any,
of the members of a state delegation shall be determined and
paid by each state, but their expenses shall be paid by the
commission.
``Sec. 5. Voting requirements
``All actions taken by the commission, except for the
establishment or termination of an over-order price or
commission marketing order, and the adoption, amendment or
rescission of the commission's by-laws, shall be by majority
vote of the delegations present. Each state delegation shall
be entitled to one vote in the conduct of the commission's
affairs. Establishment or termination of an over-order price
or commission marketing order shall require at least a two-
thirds vote of the delegations present. The establishment of
a regulated area which covers all or part of a participating
state shall require also the affirmative vote of that state's
delegation. A majority of the delegations from the
participating states shall constitute a quorum for the
conduct of the commission's business.
[[Page H6280]]
``Sec. 6. Administration and management
``(a) The commission shall elect annually from among the
members of the participating state delegations a chairperson,
a vice-chairperson, and a treasurer. The commission shall
appoint an executive director and fix his or her duties and
compensation. The executive director shall serve at the
pleasure of the commission, and together with the treasurer,
shall be bonded in an amount determined by the commission.
The commission may establish through its by-laws an executive
committee composed of one member elected by each delegation.
``(b) The commission shall adopt by-laws for the conduct of
its business by a two-thirds vote, and shall have the power
by the same vote to amend and rescind these by-laws. The
commission shall publish its by-laws in convenient form with
the appropriate agency or officer in each of the
participating states. The by-laws shall provide for
appropriate notice to the delegations of all commission
meetings and hearings and of the business to be transacted at
such meetings or hearings. Notice also shall be given to
other agencies or officers of participating states as
provided by the laws of those states.
``(c) The commission shall file an annual report with the
Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, and with each
of the participating states by submitting copies to the
governor, both houses of the legislature, and the head of the
state department having responsibilities for agriculture.
``(d) In addition to the powers and duties elsewhere
prescribed in this compact, the commission shall have the
power:
``(1) To sue and be sued in any state or federal court;
``(2) To have a seal and alter the same at pleasure;
``(3) To acquire, hold, and dispose of real and personal
property by gift, purchase, lease, license, or other similar
manner, for its corporate purposes;
``(4) To borrow money and issue notes, to provide for the
rights of the holders thereof and to pledge the revenue of
the commission as security therefor, subject to the
provisions of section eighteen of this compact;
``(5) To appoint such officers, agents, and employees as it
may deem necessary, prescribe their powers, duties and
qualifications; and
``(6) To create and abolish such offices, employments and
positions as it deems necessary for the purposes of the
compact and provide for the removal, term, tenure,
compensation, fringe benefits, pension, and retirement rights
of its officers and employees. The commission may also retain
personal services on a contract basis.
``Sec. 7. Rulemaking power
``In addition to the power to promulgate a compact over-
order price or commission marketing orders as provided by
this compact, the commission is further empowered to make and
enforce such additional rules and regulations as it deems
necessary to implement any provisions of this compact, or to
effectuate in any other respect the purposes of this compact.
``ARTICLE IV. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
``Sec. 8. Powers to promote regulatory uniformity,
simplicity, and interstate cooperation
``The commission is hereby empowered to:
``(1) Investigate or provide for investigations or research
projects designed to review the existing laws and regulations
of the participating states, to consider their administration
and costs, to measure their impact on the production and
marketing of milk and their effects on the shipment of milk
and milk products within the region.
``(2) Study and recommend to the participating states joint
or cooperative programs for the administration of the dairy
marketing laws and regulations and to prepare estimates of
cost savings and benefits of such programs.
``(3) Encourage the harmonious relationships between the
various elements in the industry for the solution of their
material problems. Conduct symposia or conferences designed
to improve industry relations, or a better understanding of
problems.
``(4) Prepare and release periodic reports on activities
and results of the commission's efforts to the participating
states.
``(5) Review the existing marketing system for milk and
milk products and recommend changes in the existing structure
for assembly and distribution of milk which may assist,
improve or promote more efficient assembly and distribution
of milk.
``(6) Investigate costs and charges for producing, hauling,
handling, processing, distributing, selling and for all other
services performed with respect to milk.
``(7) Examine current economic forces affecting producers,
probable trends in production and consumption, the level of
dairy farm prices in relation to costs, the financial
conditions of dairy farmers, and the need for an emergency
order to relieve critical conditions on dairy farms.
``Sec. 9. Equitable farm prices
``(a) The powers granted in this section and section ten
shall apply only to the establishment of a compact over-order
price, so long as federal milk marketing orders remain in
effect in the region. In the event that any or all such
orders are terminated, this article shall authorize the
commission to establish one or more commission marketing
orders, as herein provided, in the region or parts thereof as
defined in the order.
``(b) A compact over-order price established pursuant to
this section shall apply only to Class I milk. Such compact
over-order price shall not exceed one dollar and fifty cents
per gallon at Atlanta, Ga., however, this compact over-order
price shall be adjusted upward or downward at other locations
in the region to reflect differences in minimum federal order
prices. Beginning in nineteen hundred ninety, and using that
year as a base, the foregoing one dollar fifty cents per
gallon maximum shall be adjusted annually by the rate of
change in the Consumer Price Index as reported by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.
For purposes of the pooling and equalization of an over-order
price, the value of milk used in other use classifications
shall be calculated at the appropriate class price
established pursuant to the applicable federal order or state
dairy regulation and the value of unregulated milk shall be
calculated in relation to the nearest prevailing class price
in accordance with and subject to such adjustments as the
commission may prescribe in regulations.
``(c) A commission marketing order shall apply to all
classes and uses of milk.
``(d) The commission is hereby empowered to establish a
compact over-order price for milk to be paid by pool plants
and partially regulated plants. The commission is also
empowered to establish a compact over-order price to be paid
by all other handlers receiving milk from producers located
in a regulated area. This price shall be established either
as a compact over-order price or by one or more commission
marketing orders. Whenever such a price has been established
by either type of regulation, the legal obligation to pay
such price shall be determined solely by the terms and
purpose of the regulation without regard to the situs of the
transfer of title, possession or any other factors not
related to the purposes of the regulation and this compact.
Producer-handlers as defined in an applicable federal market
order shall not be subject to a compact over-order price. The
commission shall provide for similar treatment of producer-
handlers under commission marketing orders.
``(e) In determining the price, the commission shall
consider the balance between production and consumption of
milk and milk products in the regulated area, the costs of
production including, but not limited to the price of feed,
the cost of labor including the reasonable value of the
producer's own labor and management, machinery expense, and
interest expense, the prevailing price for milk outside the
regulated area, the purchasing power of the public and the
price necessary to yield a reasonable return to the producer
and distributor.
``(f) When establishing a compact over-order price, the
commission shall take such other action as is necessary and
feasible to help ensure that the over-order price does not
cause or compensate producers so as to generate local
production of milk in excess of those quantities necessary to
assure consumers of an adequate supply for fluid purposes.
``(g) The commission shall whenever possible enter into
agreements with state or federal agencies for exchange of
information or services for the purpose of reducing
regulatory burden and cost of administering the compact. The
commission may reimburse other agencies for the reasonable
cost of providing these services.
``Sec. 10. Optional provisions for pricing order
``Regulations establishing a compact over-order price or a
commission marketing order may contain, but shall not be
limited to any of the following:
``(1) Provisions classifying milk in accordance with the
form in which or purpose for which it is used, or creating a
flat pricing program.
``(2) With respect to a commission marketing order only,
provisions establishing or providing a method for
establishing separate minimum prices for each use
classification prescribed by the commission, or a single
minimum price for milk purchased from producers or
associations of producers.
``(3) With respect to an over-order minimum price,
provisions establishing or providing a method for
establishing such minimum price for Class I milk.
``(4) Provisions for establishing either an over-order
price or a commission marketing order may make use of any
reasonable method for establishing such price or prices
including flat pricing and formula pricing. Provision may
also be made for location adjustments, zone differentials and
for competitive credits with respect to regulated handlers
who market outside the regulated area.
``(5) Provisions for the payment to all producers and
associations of producers delivering milk to all handlers of
uniform prices for all milk so delivered, irrespective of the
uses made of such milk by the individual handler to whom it
is delivered, or for the payment of producers delivering milk
to the same handler of uniform prices for all milk delivered
by them.
``(A) With respect to regulations establishing a compact
over-order price, the commission may establish one
equalization pool within the regulated area for the sole
purpose of equalizing returns to producers throughout the
regulated area.
``(B) With respect to any commission marketing order, as
defined in section two, subdivision three, which replaces one
or more
[[Page H6281]]
terminated federal orders or state dairy regulations, the
marketing area of now separate state or federal orders shall
not be merged without the affirmative consent of each state,
voting through its delegation, which is partly or wholly
included within any such new marketing area.
``(6) Provisions requiring persons who bring Class I milk
into the regulated area to make compensatory payments with
respect to all such milk to the extent necessary to equalize
the cost of milk purchased by handlers subject to a compact
over-order price or commission marketing order. No such
provisions shall discriminate against milk producers outside
the regulated area. The provisions for compensatory payments
may require payment of the difference between the Class I
price required to be paid for such milk in the state of
production by a federal milk marketing order or state dairy
regulation and the Class I price established by the compact
over-order price or commission marketing order.
``(7) Provisions specially governing the pricing and
pooling of milk handled by partially regulated plants.
``(8) Provisions requiring that the account of any person
regulated under the compact over-order price shall be
adjusted for any payments made to or received by such persons
with respect to a producer settlement fund of any federal or
state milk marketing order or other state dairy regulation
within the regulated area.
``(9) Provision requiring the payment by handlers of an
assessment to cover the costs of the administration and
enforcement of such order pursuant to Article VII, Section
18(a).
``(10) Provisions for reimbursement to participants of the
Women, Infants and Children Special Supplemental Food Program
of the United States Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
``(11) Other provisions and requirements as the commission
may find are necessary or appropriate to effectuate the
purposes of this compact and to provide for the payment of
fair and equitable minimum prices to producers.
``ARTICLE V. RULEMAKING PROCEDURE
``Sec. 11. Rulemaking procedure
``Before promulgation of any regulations establishing a
compact over-order price or commission marketing order,
including any provision with respect to milk supply under
subsection 9(f), or amendment thereof, as provided in Article
IV, the commission shall conduct an informal rulemaking
proceeding to provide interested persons with an opportunity
to present data and views. Such rulemaking proceeding shall
be governed by section four of the Federal Administrative
Procedure Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Sec. 553). In addition,
the commission shall, to the extent practicable, publish
notice of rulemaking proceedings in the official register of
each participating state. Before the initial adoption of
regulations establishing a compact over-order price or a
commission marketing order and thereafter before any
amendment with regard to prices or assessments, the
commission shall hold a public hearing. The commission may
commence a rulemaking proceeding on its own initiative or may
in its sole discretion act upon the petition of any person
including individual milk producers, any organization of milk
producers or handlers, general farm organizations, consumer
or public interest groups, and local, state or federal
officials.
``Sec. 12. Findings and referendum
``(a) In addition to the concise general statement of basis
and purpose required by section 4(b) of the Federal
Administrative Procedure Act, as amended (5 U.S.C.
Sec. 553(c)), the commission shall make findings of fact with
respect to:
``(1) Whether the public interest will be served by the
establishment of minimum milk prices to dairy farmers under
Article IV.
``(2) What level of prices will assure that producers
receive a price sufficient to cover their costs of production
and will elicit an adequate supply of milk for the
inhabitants of the regulated area and for manufacturing
purposes.
``(3) Whether the major provisions of the order, other than
those fixing minimum milk prices, are in the public interest
and are reasonably designed to achieve the purposes of the
order.
``(4) Whether the terms of the proposed regional order or
amendment are approved by producers as provided in section
thirteen.
``Sec. 13. Producer referendum
``(a) For the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance
or amendment of regulations establishing a compact over-order
price or a commission marketing order, including any
provision with respect to milk supply under subsection 9(f),
is approved by producers, the commission shall conduct a
referendum among producers. The referendum shall be held in a
timely manner, as determined by regulation of the commission.
The terms and conditions of the proposed order or amendment
shall be described by the commission in the ballot used in
the conduct of the referendum, but the nature, content, or
extent of such description shall not be a basis for attacking
the legality of the order or any action relating thereto.
``(b) An order or amendment shall be deemed approved by
producers if the commission determines that it is approved by
at least two-thirds of the voting producers who, during a
representative period determined by the commission, have been
engaged in the production of milk the price of which would be
regulated under the proposed order or amendment.
``(c) For purposes of any referendum, the commission shall
consider the approval or disapproval by any cooperative
association of producers, qualified under the provisions of
the Act of Congress of February 18, 1922, as amended, known
as the Capper-Volstead Act, bona fide engaged in marketing
milk, or in rendering services for or advancing the interests
of producers of such commodity, as the approval or
disapproval of the producers who are members or stockholders
in, or under contract with, such cooperative association of
producers, except as provided in subdivision (1) hereof and
subject to the provisions of subdivision (2) through (5)
hereof.
``(1) No cooperative which has been formed to act as a
common marketing agency for both cooperatives and individual
producers shall be qualified to block vote for either.
``(2) Any cooperative which is qualified to block vote
shall, before submitting its approval or disapproval in any
referendum, give prior written notice to each of its members
as to whether and how it intends to cast its vote. The notice
shall be given in a timely manner as established, and in the
form prescribed, by the commission.
``(3) Any producer may obtain a ballot from the commission
in order to register approval or disapproval of the proposed
order.
``(4) A producer who is a member of a cooperative which has
provided notice of its intent to approve or not to approve a
proposed order, and who obtains a ballot and with such ballot
expresses his approval or disapproval of the proposed order,
shall notify the commission as to the name of the cooperative
of which he or she is a member, and the commission shall
remove such producer's name from the list certified by such
cooperative with its corporate vote.
``(5) In order to insure that all milk producers are
informed regarding the proposed order, the commission shall
notify all milk producers that an order is being considered
and that each producer may register his approval or
disapproval with the commission either directly or through
his or her cooperative.
``Sec. 14. Termination of over-order price or marketing order
``(a) The commission shall terminate any regulations
establishing an over-order price or commission marketing
order issued under this article whenever it finds that such
order or price obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the
declared policy of this compact.
``(b) The commission shall terminate any regulations
establishing an over-order price or a commission marketing
order issued under this article whenever it finds that such
termination is favored by a majority of the producers who,
during a representative period determined by the commission,
have been engaged in the production of milk the price of
which is regulated by such order; but such termination shall
be effective only if announced on or before such date as may
be specified in such marketing agreement or order.
``(c) The termination or suspension of any order or
provision thereof, shall not be considered an order within
the meaning of this article and shall require no hearing, but
shall comply with the requirements for informal rulemaking
prescribed by section four of the Federal Administrative
Procedure Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Sec. 553).
``ARTICLE VI. ENFORCEMENT
``Sec. 15. Records; reports; access to premises
``(a) The commission may by rule and regulation prescribe
record keeping and reporting requirements for all regulated
persons. For purposes of the administration and enforcement
of this compact, the commission is authorized to examine the
books and records of any regulated person relating to his or
her milk business and for that purpose, the commission's
properly designated officers, employees, or agents shall have
full access during normal business hours to the premises and
records of all regulated persons.
``(b) Information furnished to or acquired by the
commission officers, employees, or its agents pursuant to
this section shall be confidential and not subject to
disclosure except to the extent that the commission deems
disclosure to be necessary in any administrative or judicial
proceeding involving the administration or enforcement of
this compact, an over-order price, a compact marketing order,
or other regulations of the commission. The commission may
promulgate regulations further defining the confidentiality
of information pursuant to this section. Nothing in this
section shall be deemed to prohibit (i) the issuance of
general statements based upon the reports of a number of
handlers, which do not identify the information furnished by
any person, or (ii) the publication by direction of the
commission of the name of any person violating any regulation
of the commission, together with a statement of the
particular provisions violated by such person.
``(c) No officer, employee, or agent of the commission
shall intentionally disclose information, by inference or
otherwise, which is made confidential pursuant to this
section. Any person violating the provisions of this section
shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than
one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for not more than one
year, or to both, and shall be removed from office. The
commission shall refer any allegation of a violation of this
[[Page H6282]]
section to the appropriate state enforcement authority or
United States Attorney.
``Sec. 16. Subpoena; hearings and judicial review
``(a) The commission is hereby authorized and empowered by
its members and its properly designated officers to
administer oaths and issue subpoenas throughout all signatory
states to compel the attendance of witnesses and the giving
of testimony and the production of other evidence.
``(b) Any handler subject to an order may file a written
petition with the commission stating that any such order or
any provision of any such order or any obligation imposed in
connection therewith is not in accordance with law and
praying for a modification thereof or to be exempted
therefrom. He shall thereupon be given an opportunity for a
hearing upon such petition, in accordance with regulations
made by the commission. After such hearing, the commission
shall make a ruling upon the prayer of such petition which
shall be final, if in accordance with law.
``(c) The district courts of the United States in any
district in which such handler is an inhabitant, or has his
principal place of business, are hereby vested with
jurisdiction to review such ruling, provided a complaint for
that purpose is filed within thirty days from the date of the
entry of such ruling. Service of process in such proceedings
may be had upon the commission by delivering to it a copy of
the complaint. If the court determines that such ruling is
not in accordance with law, it shall remand such proceedings
to the commission with directions either (1) to make such
ruling as the court shall determine to be in accordance with
law, or (2) to take such further proceedings as, in its
opinion, the law requires. The pendency of proceedings
instituted pursuant to this subdivision shall not impede,
hinder, or delay the commission from obtaining relief
pursuant to section seventeen. Any proceedings brought
pursuant to section seventeen, except where brought by way of
counterclaim in proceedings instituted pursuant to this
section, shall abate whenever a final decree has been
rendered in proceedings between the same parties, and
covering the same subject matter, instituted pursuant to this
section.
``Sec. 17. Enforcement with respect to handlers
``(a) Any violation by a handler of the provisions of
regulations establishing an over-order price or a commission
marketing order, or other regulations adopted pursuant to
this compact shall:
``(1) Constitute a violation of the laws of each of the
signatory states. Such violation shall render the violator
subject to a civil penalty in an amount as may be prescribed
by the laws of each of the participating states, recoverable
in any state or federal court of competent jurisdiction. Each
day such violation continues shall constitute a separate
violation.
``(2) Constitute grounds for the revocation of license or
permit to engage in the milk business under the applicable
laws of the participating states.
``(b) With respect to handlers, the commission shall
enforce the provisions of this compact, regulations
establishing an over-order price, a commission marketing
order or other regulations adopted hereunder by:
``(1) Commencing an action for legal or equitable relief
brought in the name of the commission of any state or federal
court of competent jurisdiction; or
``(2) Referral to the state agency for enforcement by
judicial or administrative remedy with the agreement of the
appropriate state agency of a participating state.
``(c) With respect to handlers, the commission may bring an
action for injunction to enforce the provisions of this
compact or the order or regulations adopted thereunder
without being compelled to allege or prove that an adequate
remedy of law does not exist.
``ARTICLE VII. FINANCE
``Sec. 18. Finance of start-up and regular costs
``(a) To provide for its start-up costs, the commission may
borrow money pursuant to its general power under section six,
subdivision (d), paragraph four. In order to finance the
costs of administration and enforcement of this compact,
including payback of start-up costs, the commission is hereby
empowered to collect an assessment from each handler who
purchases milk from producers within the region. If
imposed, this assessment shall be collected on a monthly
basis for up to one year from the date the commission
convenes, in an amount not to exceed $.015 per
hundredweight of milk purchased from producers during the
period of the assessment. The initial assessment may apply
to the projected purchases of handlers for the two-month
period following the date the commission convenes. In
addition, if regulations establishing an over-order price
or a compact marketing order are adopted, they may include
an assessment for the specific purpose of their
administration. These regulations shall provide for
establishment of a reserve for the commission's ongoing
operating expenses.
``(b) The commission shall not pledge the credit of any
participating state or of the United States. Notes issued by
the commission and all other financial obligations incurred
by it, shall be its sole responsibility and no participating
state or the United States shall be liable therefor.
``Sec. 19. Audit and accounts
``(a) The commission shall keep accurate accounts of all
receipts and disbursements, which shall be subject to the
audit and accounting procedures established under its rules.
In addition, all receipts and disbursements of funds handled
by the commission shall be audited yearly by a qualified
public accountant and the report of the audit shall be
included in and become part of the annual report of the
commission.
``(b) The accounts of the commission shall be open at any
reasonable time for inspection by duly constituted officers
of the participating states and by any persons authorized by
the commission.
``(c) Nothing contained in this article shall be construed
to prevent commission compliance with laws relating to audit
or inspection of accounts by or on behalf of any
participating state or of the United States.
``ARTICLE VIII. ENTRY INTO FORCE; ADDITIONAL MEMBERS AND WITHDRAWAL
``Sec. 20. Entry into force; additional members
``The compact shall enter into force effective when enacted
into law by any three states of the group of states composed
of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia and
when the consent of Congress has been obtained.
``Sec. 21. Withdrawal from compact
``Any participating state may withdraw from this compact by
enacting a statute repealing the same, but no such withdrawal
shall take effect until one year after notice in writing of
the withdrawal is given to the commission and the governors
of all other participating states. No withdrawal shall affect
any liability already incurred by or chargeable to a
participating state prior to the time of such withdrawal.
``Sec. 22. Severability
``If any part or provision of this compact is adjudged
invalid by any court, such judgment shall be confined in its
operation to the part or provision directly involved in the
controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered
and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder
of this compact. In the event Congress consents to this
compact subject to conditions, said conditions shall not
impair the validity of this compact when said conditions are
accepted by three or more compacting states. A compacting
state may accept the conditions of Congress by implementation
of this compact.''.
SEC. 149. PACIFIC NORTHWEST DAIRY COMPACT.
Congress consents to a Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact
proposed for the States of California, Oregon, and
Washington, subject to the following conditions:
(1) Text.--The text of the Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact
shall be identical to the text of the Southern Dairy Compact,
except as follows:
(A) References to ``south'', ``southern'', and ``Southern''
shall be changed to ``Pacific Northwest''.
(B) In section 9(b), the reference to ``Atlanta, Georgia''
shall be changed to ``Seattle, Washington''.
(C) In section 20, the reference to ``any three'' and all
that follows shall be changed to ``California, Oregon, and
Washington.''.
(2) Limitation of manufacturing price regulation.--The
Dairy Compact Commission established to administer the
Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact (referred to in this section
as the ``Commission'') may not regulate Class II, Class III,
or Class IV milk used for manufacturing purposes or any other
milk, other than Class I, or fluid milk, as defined by a
Federal milk marketing order issued under section 8c of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with
amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937
(referred to in this section as a ``Federal milk marketing
order'').
(3) Compensation of special milk program.--Before the end
of each fiscal year in which a Compact price regulation is in
effect, the Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact Commission shall
compensate the Secretary of Agriculture for the increased
cost of any milk and milk products provided under the special
milk program established under section 3 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772) that results from the
operation of the Compact price regulation during the fiscal
year, as determined by the Secretary (in consultation with
the Commission) using notice and comment procedures provided
in section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
(4) Effective date.--Congressional consent under this
section takes effect on the date (not later than 3 years
after the date of enactment of this Act) on which the Pacific
Northwest Dairy Compact is entered into by the second of the
3 States specified in the matter preceding paragraph (1).
(5) Compensation of commodity credit corporation.--Before
the end of each fiscal year in which a price regulation is in
effect under the Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact, the
Commission shall compensate the Commodity Credit Corporation
for the cost of any purchases of milk and milk products by
the Corporation that result from the operation of the Compact
price regulation during the fiscal year, as determined by the
Secretary (in consultation with the Commission) using notice
and comment procedures provided in section 553 of title 5,
United States Code.
(6) Milk marketing order administrator.--At the request of
the Commission, the Administrator of the applicable Federal
milk marketing order shall provide technical assistance to
the Commission and be compensated for that assistance.
[[Page H6283]]
SEC. 150. INTERMOUNTAIN DAIRY COMPACT.
Congress consents to an Intermountain Dairy Compact
proposed for the States of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Text.--The text of the Intermountain Dairy Compact
shall be identical to the text of the Southern Dairy Compact,
except as follows:
(A) In section 1, the references to ``southern'' and
``south'' shall be changed to ``Intermountain'' and
``Intermountain region'', respectively.
(B) References to ``Southern'' shall be changed to
``Intermountain ''.
(C) In section 9(b), the reference to ``Atlanta, Georgia''
shall be changed to ``Salt Lake City, Utah''.
(D) In section 20, the reference to ``any three'' and all
that follows shall be changed to ``Colorado, Nevada, and
Utah.''.
(2) Limitation of manufacturing price regulation.--The
Dairy Compact Commission established to administer the
Intermountain Dairy Compact (referred to in this section as
the ``Commission'') may not regulate Class II, Class III, or
Class IV milk used for manufacturing purposes or any other
milk, other than Class I, or fluid milk, as defined by a
Federal milk marketing order issued under section 8c of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with
amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937
(referred to in this section as a ``Federal milk marketing
order'').
(3) Compensation of special milk program.--Before the end
of each fiscal year in which a Compact price regulation is in
effect, the Intermountain Dairy Compact Commission shall
compensate the Secretary of Agriculture for the increased
cost of any milk and milk products provided under the special
milk program established under section 3 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772) that results from the
operation of the Compact price regulation during the fiscal
year, as determined by the Secretary (in consultation with
the Commission) using notice and comment procedures provided
in section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
(4) Effective date.--Congressional consent under this
section takes effect on the date (not later than 3 years
after the date of enactment of this Act) on which the
Intermountain Dairy Compact is entered into by the second of
the 3 States specified in the matter preceding paragraph (1).
(5) Compensation of commodity credit corporation.--Before
the end of each fiscal year in which a price regulation is in
effect under the Intermountain Dairy Compact, the Commission
shall compensate the Commodity Credit Corporation for the
cost of any purchases of milk and milk products by the
Corporation that result from the operation of the Compact
price regulation during the fiscal year, as determined by the
Secretary (in consultation with the Commission) using notice
and comment procedures provided in section 553 of title 5,
United States Code.
(6) Milk marketing order administrator.--At the request of
the Commission, the Administrator of the applicable Federal
milk marketing order shall provide technical assistance to
the Commission and be compensated for that assistance.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a
point of order on the amendment.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the Sherwood-Etheridge-McHugh amendment
to the farm bill would implement provisions of H.R. 1827, the Dairy
Consumers and Producers Protection Act of 2001, a very bipartisan
measure sponsored by 165 Members of the House representing 30 sites in
the country.
This amendment allows the expansion and the extension of the
Northeast Dairy Compact, which expired on September 30, and the
creation of a Southern Dairy Compact, a Pacific Northwest Dairy
Compact, and an Intermountain Dairy Compact.
Other Members offering this amendment are the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Sweeney), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), and the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
I have also sent out a Dear Colleague letter signed by 30 Members who
want a debate and a vote on dairy compact extension and expansion
legislation. The time has come for this debate.
Dairy compacts are good for our farmers, they are good for our
consumers and our Nation for several reasons: They operate at no cost
to taxpayers; they are constitutional; they enjoy strong support in
Congress; and in the 25 States in which they have been overwhelmingly
passed, the vote was over 5,000 to 300 for.
They keep dairy farmers producing high-quality milk our consumers
demand at a stable and affordable price. Compacts also strengthen rural
communities and help save farmland from urban sprawl. The reason they
operate at no cost to taxpayers is the payments come from the milk
market, and they are only made to farmers when the compact commission
price is over the Federal marketing price.
That only happens on certain occasions. Right now, the compact would
not be effective. The Federal order price is sufficient for people to
produce milk. But when it goes down, it is a great safety net for
producers of fluid milk.
The compacts are constitutional. Since passage of compact legislation
in the 1996 farm bill, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia affirmed on January 20, 1998, that the compact is
constitutional. Additional court rulings found that the compact
commission's regulations were consistent with the commerce clause, the
compact clause, and the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Concerning bioterrorism, it will be much better for the stability of
our food supply if milk is produced across the country, instead of just
in certain concentrated areas. Milk is also proven to be cheaper under
the compact in Boston than it is in many other areas of the country.
So in summary, Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons for compacts.
They are good for farmers and rural communities, they are good for food
security in a terrorist time, they are good for consumers because it
assures a stable supply of fresh milk at a good price, they are good
for taxpayers because the payments do not come out of the public
Treasury, and they are proven in New England to work.
Mr. Chairman, I grew up in a small town in Nicholson, Pennsylvania.
As a young man, we had three creameries, four feed dealers, and two
automobile and equipment dealers in that little town. Today, there are
none of those. The consolidation of agriculture is very tough on rural
communities. So I would ask that we support this measure and pass dairy
compacts. They are good for the country.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support, as a cosponsor
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Sherwood), along with the other Members who are signing onto this, and
the over 160 Members, and counting, of this House of Representatives
that support not only the continuation of the dairy compact but the
expansion of the compact.
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a document and legislation that is
being supported by State legislatures, that is being supported by
governors, and that is asking the United States Congress, not for the
first time, Mr. Chairman, but for the third time to extend and expand
the compact.
This works. It has worked well. My friends may offer arguments by
saying it protects a region, that it increases the prices, and is not a
benefit to the consumers. But the facts do not bear that out. In the
compact States, as we have been able to show, the production is down
versus the national average. In the compact States, the prices are
lower than the national average. The consumers have actually been able
to benefit.
I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that by supporting locally owned
independent small businesses, which are these agricultural entities, we
are supporting the strength of America and the strength of Maine, which
is predominantly small businesses, family businesses.
In my own family business, we have always lamented about the fact
that we have been exempted from child labor laws, so we worked early
and often, and we did not receive very much for it. But as my mother
says to me today, it never hurt any of us at all.
I think that the strength of that work ethic, that family involvement
in local communities, is something that this compact supports, so we
should not be discouraging these kinds of developments, but we should
be encouraging these kinds of developments. What is wrong with locally
owned home-grown small businesses, agricultural businesses? For far too
long, we have been relegated to the back parts of America and in our
communities.
I have always said to people, if we were able to fence it in like a
defense establishment and be able to talk
[[Page H6284]]
about the farm families, the farm income, and the impact to our
communities, we as political leaders would be falling all over
ourselves to do everything possible to make sure not only we kept them
but we expanded upon them.
Agriculture is our strongest defense, and our national food security
interest. I think it is vital to make sure that they are strong and
healthy and vibrant. This is the kind of a program that the dairy
compact has been able to produce.
Having worked on two agricultural farm programs over the 8 years that
I have served in Congress, the importance is to make sure that we have
a countercyclical program, to make sure that we have a program that
works with farmers, works with communities.
This is the ultimate program. It does not kick in unless it hits a
floor. Right now, the fluid milk prices are at a particular level that
we do not need to have the compact kick in, but if, in fact, things do
not maintain that high level, the compact kicks in, so it is a floor.
It is an insurance policy. Also, they have been able to see that the
lack of reduction in farm families that occurred in the compact areas.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the House, I rise in
strong support of the amendment to the Farm Bill proposed by my
colleagues Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Etheridge, and Mr. McHugh to extend and
expand the Northeast Dairy Compact and to authorize the creation of
other Interstate Dairy Compacts in other regions of the country.
I was disappointed that this important amendment did not receive a
waiver from the Rules Committee yesterday to allow for a definitive up
or down vote in the full House of Representatives. I would like to
stress the importance of this amendment to dairy farmers in the
Northeast as well as other states wishing to enter into their own dairy
compacts.
As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I have worked diligently to
help craft a Farm Bill which not only maintains current agriculture
policy, but expands conservation and research to represent the changing
values of American farmers. I believe that a critical part of our farm
policy must be Interstate Dairy Compacts. The existing authorization
for the Northeast Dairy Compact expired on September 30, 2001.
One of the highlights of this year's Farm Bill is a return to the
counter-cyclical price support system to aid farmers when prices drop
below a sustainable level. Dairy Compacts provide the ultimate counter-
cyclical payment: farmers receive aid only when milk prices drop below
the Compact Commission-established minimum. In contrast to other farm
support programs, however, all Compact expenditures come directly from
the milk producers themselves, therefore costing the taxpayers nothing.
Compacts allow for regions to best set their own prices, similar to
other programs which delegate pricing authority to state and local
levels. Evidence has shown that over the life of the Northeast Dairy
Compact, consumers in Compact states have seen a reduction in milk
prices, while farmers have received more for their milk on average than
those in non-Compact states.
Since the implementation of the Northeast Dairy Compact, there has
been no overproduction of milk in the Compact region; in fact drinking
milk consumption has outstripped production in New England during the
Compact period. More to the point, a recent GAO study found the Compact
structure to have little to no impact on price and production of milk
in non-Compact states. We expect the same results from an expanded
Northeast Compact and the new Compacts authorized under this amendment.
During the year 2000 alone, the Compact provided $4.8 million in
assistance to Maine farmers, at absolutely no cost to the federal
government. Through the benefits of the Compact, the rate of decline in
the number of Maine dairy farms dropped from 16% to 6%. In short, dairy
compacts save farms and allow for locally produced milk to reach
consumers at a competitive price.
In addition to these statistics, we must also take into account the
intangible benefits that Dairy Compacts can provide. Preservation of
open space and conservation of land has become a key issue facing this
Farm Bill.
Dairy Compacts protect open space by allowing farmers to receive
competitive prices for their milk and remain in business. Wildlife
habitat is saved from sprawl and intrusion by ever-expanding urban
communities, and families have a chance to purchase locally-produced
milk at a stable price. The importance of compacts cannot be
understated, as evidenced by the number of states seeking to join one.
I understand that this amendment will not reach a final vote because
of a point of order. It is my intention to work with my colleagues to
find another vehicle by which to resurrect the Dairy Compact structure
which expired September 30th. This is a program which is vitally
important to dairy farmers in Maine and at least 25 other states. My
colleagues who support the Dairy Compact and I will continue to press
ahead to see that our farmers receive the assistance that they need and
deserve. I ask only that the Compact be given a chance for a fair vote
so that this issue can be resolved.
Mr. McGOVERN, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sherwood,
Etheridge, McHugh amendment to permanently authorize the Northeast
Dairy Compact. This is a good program that is vital for dairy farmers
in the northeast and southeast--farmers I represent.
The Northeast Diary Compact expired on September 30, 2001--merely 3
days ago. The House could have addressed this issue by allowing a
debate and a vote on the compact at any point this year. Instead, the
House and the other chamber decided to ignore the plight of dairy
farmers.
Members of Congress from the Northeast and the Southeast have worked
tirelessly to reauthorize the dairy compact and to extend it to help
those dairy farmers who don't have the fortune of living in the
Midwest.
The Northeast Dairy Compact is good, sound policy for my dairy
farmers and for dairy farmers who live outside of Wisconsin and
Minnesota. In the absence of a national dairy policy, the dairy compact
is the only way for these dairy farmers to remain viable.
Dairy prices today are comparable to prices in 1978 and my farmers
cannot stay in business with these low prices. The 270 dairy farms in
Massachusetts received an average of $13,300 per farm in 2000. This
total, $3.6 million in all, came at no cost to federal, state or local
governments. Like farmers in other sectors of agriculture in other
parts of the country, dairy farmers in the Northeast cannot succeed
without help.
The Northeast Dairy Compact is not only a priority for dairy farmers
but it is also a priority for conservationists. As we know, urban
sprawl is diminishing our quality of life. By helping farms stay open,
the Northeast Dairy Company has protected over 113,000 acres of open
space from urban sprawl. Without the compact, we'll see open space
turning into strip malls, WalMarts or parking lots. The Dairy Compact
is good for the environment.
Mr. Chairman, the only action dairy compact supporters have asked for
is an up or down vote on this issue. Our dairy farmers deserve the
opportunity to have this issue debated fairly and to have the House
express its support or disapproval for dairy compact. Dairy is a
commodity and should be debated along with other commodities. The Farm
Bill is the right place to have this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take time to thank several Members who have
been active on the Dairy Compact. Specifically, I want to thank former
Representative Asa Hutchison for introducing the bill to permanently
authorize the Northeast Dairy Compact and to form the Southeast Dairy
Compact. I also want to thank Representatives Don Sherwood, Bob
Etheridge and John McHugh for offering this amendment today. And I want
to thank Chairman Jim Walsh and Representative Bernie Sanders, as well
as the other Members in the Northeast and Southeast, for their hard
work and commitment to the Dairy Compact.
On September 17, 2001, the Boston Globe editorialized on the
Northeast Dairy Compact. I quote--``If Congress doesn't act by the end
of this month, dairy farmers in New England will lose a regional price
support system that has helped to keep many in business. The long-term
effect will be loss of farms, farmland, and locally produced fresh
milk.''
I urge the leadership of both parties to come together, schedule a
debate and allow an up or down vote on the Dairy Compact This is the
best we can do for all dairy farmers until we have a national policy.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Sherwood
Amendment to permanently extend the Northeast Dairy Compact. This
Compact is critical to the survival of small dairy farms not only in my
district in New Hampshire but also throughout the Northeast. Its
operation provides a safety net for New Hampshire farmers, and it
ensures a stable supply of fresh, local milk for consumers.
In my district, rural communities are profoundly affected by the
survival of dairy farms, which provide jobs, purchase goods and
services, and preserve dwindling agricultural land. The Northeast Dairy
Compact has kept these farms in business for the good of farmers and
consumers.
Dairy compacts neither cost the federal government nor allow retail
milk prices to increase disproportionately. Congress should listen to
the farmers, taxpayers, and the twenty-five states, which have passed
compact legislation, and support the permanent extension of the
Northeast Dairy Compact.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for
the point of order to ensure that the proponents of the Northeast
[[Page H6285]]
Dairy Compact are not able to extend this unwise experiment in dairy
policy.
Mr. Chairman, the current milk marketing system is complex and
flawed, and the creation of the Northeast Dairy Compact has exacerbated
the deficiencies of our national dairy policy. Dairy reform is needed,
but we should not permit the continuation of the Northeast Dairy
Compact, and we certainly should not allow an expansion of dairy
compacts into other regions of the country.
I am greatly troubled that the supporters of the Northeast Dairy
Compact are once again attempting to bypass the rules of the House to
impose a regional milk cartel that has hurt dairy farmers in my
congressional district and throughout the upper Midwest region.
The Northeast Dairy Compact initiative was inserted into the 1996
Farm bill conference report in violation of House rules and the
proponents utilized midnight parliamentary tactics to create a milk
regime that distorts the market and hurts consumers. While it is worth
noting that the Northeast Dairy Compact proponents are here on the
House Floor today during the light of day, they are here, nevertheless,
to offer an amendment to this year's Farm bill that is in violation of
House rules. The rules of the House are very clear that the
jurisdiction of interstate compacts falls within the House Judiciary
Committee, not the House Agriculture Committee.
Since this amendment to extend and expand this faulty compact is not
germane to the Farm bill, it is incumbent upon the Chair to sustain the
point of order and rule against this amendment. If my colleagues want
this compact to continue, I would encourage them to follow the rules of
the House and work with the Judiciary Committee.
{time} 1200
Point of Order
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will make my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Wisconsin
is recognized.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this point I stress the
point of order that under clause 7 of rule XVI, this amendment is not
germane. The amendment is not germane because all interstate compacts
fall under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on the Judiciary,
not the Committee on Agriculture. Therefore, the amendment fails to
meet the jurisdictional test of clause 7 of rule XVI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, our dairy farmers are faced with extreme circumstances
and have been for quite some time. Today in this House we have an
opportunity to debate, discuss and vote on the single greatest source
of relief for those people. It really, fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, is
we are faced with a question of fairness in whether this House can
deliberate openly and do the business of the people.
We are faced with an underlying bill that addresses all sorts of
commodity issues, but for New York and the Northeast, we do very little
as it relates to supporting dairy farmers and small dairy families.
I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that there is tremendous and
substantial support, 165 Members representing 30 States from both sides
of the aisle have co-sponsored this. Twenty-five states have asked this
Congress to act and allow them the opportunity to move forward and
develop compacts within their region.
The policy is very good. During these tough economic times while we
are contemplating appropriating tens of billions of dollars for an
economic stimulus package, here is a process, a program that will
afford substantial parts of this Nation, a substantial sector in this
Nation, economic relief without costing the Federal Government a dime.
As some other speakers have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to also say that there is a very important point that needs to be
brought to light considering the recent events that we have faced in
this Nation. Opponents have said the concept of regionalized dairy
policy is an outdated concept. Unfortunately and sadly, due to the
events of September 11, we now see that our transportation system
cannot only be attacked but made vulnerable.
Consumers deserve a stable supply of local fresh milk. Local farmers
are the best way to do that. This amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) is an opportunity for this Congress to
do something very positive and very forceful in that regard.
Let me say this, Mr. Chairman, that it is an important strategic need
that we actually are debating today. One that we need to have brought
to this floor today, and if not today, soon. My constituents demand it.
We need a debate on the extension and expansion of regional dairy
compacts. We need to show America that at the core of all of this, when
so much interest and so many Members and so many States support this
notion, this Congress is able to act.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members that after the
Chair rules on this point of order, Members may invoke the 5-minute
rule to continue debate on this matter.
The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, before the ruling, the germaneness issue
here, is the charge being made that the dairy interest is not part of
the agricultural interest? Is that the germaneness issue? That it does
not belong in the debate even though we are talking about a 10-year
reauthorization of the farm bill, that the dairy is not farm or not
agriculture?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will rule after argument is heard
by the proponents and opponents of the point of order.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the point of order should be
sustained. The rules of the House very clearly state that interstate
compacts, regardless of the nature of them, fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. This bill is a bill
that has been produced not by the Committee on the Judiciary, but the
Committee on Agriculture, and consequently the amendment does not meet
the jurisdictional test that is contained in clause 7 of rule XVI. The
point of order should be determined to be well taken.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that as an act of comity, the
gentleman who originally raised the point of order will withdraw it at
this time so that Members who feel strongly about this issue will have
a chance to debate a life and death issue for hundreds of thousands of
family farmers in this country.
We understand the germaneness issue, but common courtesy would
indicate that you allow many Members to come to the floor of the House
and debate this issue. I do not know what my friend from Maine was
going to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, but I have the feeling that
he may have asked him how many hearings were held on this issue despite
the fact that 165 Members of the Congress, Democrats, Republicans,
Independents, Conservatives, Progressives are fighting for this issue.
I think he might have asked the gentleman how many hearings were held
when 25 States, half of the States in this country, voted to do
something for their dairy farmers in supporting the dairy compact. We
can argue the merits or the demerits of the dairy compact. It has
worked. I am a strong proponent of it. It has helped save family farms.
But the more important issue is basic fairness here on the floor of the
House. How do you turn your back, especially, I might say, those who
believe in devolution, those who say, let the States have power, how do
you say to those 25 States who are seeing their family farmers go out
of business, their rural economies suffering, how do you say to those
people, you cannot even get a hearing on the floor of the House. You
cannot even get a vote on the floor of the House.
If the Members are so sure of the righteousness of their our ideas,
debate the ideas and bring a vote to the floor of the House.
Mr. Chairman, I would at least ask as an act of comity, may I have a
dialogue with my friend who raised the point of order?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Vermont suspend?
The gentleman will remember that the Chair controls the time on the
[[Page H6286]]
point of order, and members may not engage in colloquies.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I do remember that. I would ask my friend,
yield to him briefly, would he be so kind as to withdraw his objection
at this time?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Vermont suspend?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just hope at least that we can
continue this debate on such an important issue.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs.
Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be
recognized on this point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is as
black and white as the gentleman from Wisconsin maintains. There is
genuine ambiguity about the germaneness of this amendment.
Because while the statute the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) cites in terms of regional compacts is one
consideration, the other consideration is that the agricultural bill
and the Department of Agriculture do establish the whole milk marketing
system, which is a market governance mechanism that if you were going
to be consistent, should be under judiciary, if your point of order
were to hold.
This is merely a variant of the milk marketing order to accommodate
it to meet the goals that the Department of Agriculture has set for its
milk marketing system, which goals that milk marketing system does not
meet. The milk marketing system's goals were to assure regional
production, but within that system were also mechanisms to prevent
overproduction.
The national system is not working. This regional system is working.
Under the national system, there was a 7.4 percent increase in
production over the period of the compact, and in the region of the
compact, production actually went down. Why? Because we have an
incentive system that discourages overproduction. It is something the
Federal Government has desperately tried to develop in every one of its
ag subsidy programs and has failed.
Our incentives to control production, which is a Department of
Agriculture goal, part of the milk marketing order policy contained in
this ag bill is a goal that is better achieved through this adjustment
to the milk marketing order system than through underlying national
policy because it does adjust that policy for regional concerns and
puts in place not only a system that can address supply, but one in
which consumers are represented. So it is a far more democratic process
than the Federal milk marketing order process.
So I would say that the issue of germaness is not black and white. It
is ambiguous, and we have every much as good a case that this is
germane as the gentleman from Wisconsin has that it is not germane, and
what should influence the Chair is not only that ambiguity, but the
fact that the Committee on the Judiciary has refused to give this
matter consideration, to hold hearings, to give us our voice, to even
bring it to the floor with a negative recommendation or choose one of
the other processes available.
We should not be muffled. The interests of our people in national
agricultural policy are very real, and this bill establishes national
agricultural policy and has within it a market structure that is the
market structure that we wish to adjust to regional interests. So I
would say the issue is ambiguous, and I would urge the Chair to rule in
favor of all those regions of the country that get no other benefit
from the ag bill but would benefit in supporting the farm income in
exactly the same way they want to support the income of other farmers
under the ag bill.
So I urge Members' support of the Sherwood amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Etheridge) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, on the issue of
jurisdiction and ambiguity, and I understand the Chair is getting
prepared to rule, but Mr. Chairman, I would join the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who just spoke that there is enough
ambiguity. We are looking at issues that 25 States have expressed their
wishes, governors have signed the papers indicating their wishes to be
a part of a compact, my State being one of those States that want to be
a part of it.
We are seeing a loss in farmers. Twenty-five years ago in my State,
there was 1,600 dairy farmers. Today, we have about a fourth of that
figure. We are asking for trouble if we allow milk production to be
consolidated into just a few small hands, and we have seen that, as you
have already heard about what happened on September 11, continue.
We must take action to allow more small dairy farmers to survive, and
compacts are a proven method to do that. We have seen that in the
northeast. If my State of North Carolina were a member of a compact as
were other dairy States in the northeast, their combined income would
have been over $20 million in the year 2000, but instead they received
5.4 million in Federal dollars. They do not want the money from the
Federal Government. They want to get it from the marketplace.
We write these farm bills because of the fluctuation in the
marketplace. It has made it difficult for farmers to plan, and we are
trying to help level it out as we should to help production in
agriculture, but denying a vote on the no cost options to help dairy
farmers when prices decline simply does not make sense.
That is what we are about. We are about a democratic body, expressing
the wills and wishes of the people of this country. The northeast
compact has shown that you can take the volatility out of the milk
pricing, keep dairy farmers in business and provide a fresh supply of
local milk at a fair price, all without costing the Federal Government
a cent. We ought to be about that. That ought to be about what we are
doing.
The compact establishes a floor, as you have already said. Producers,
consumers and even processors play a role in determining the price.
Some argue that compacts cause overproduction of milk which would then
flood our class III producers, like cheese, and cause the prices of
these products to decline, but that has just not happened in what we
have seen in the northeast. In fact, last year, every compact State saw
a decrease in milk production, except one, and that was Vermont which
had an increase of only 2.8 percent less than the national average.
That follows a similar decrease in production in 1999. We ought to be
endorsing that. That ought to be what we are working about as a body
here to help make a difference.
The northeast compact even provides incentives to farmers not to
overproduce, and there is no reason why these incentives will not work
in other parts of the Nation.
Some may also argue that the northeast compact has not stopped dairy
farmers from going out of business in that region. Nothing in this
underlying farm bill will keep every single farmer in business,
regardless if they are in dairy, wheat or any other product. We
understand that, but since the compact has been in place, the rate of
closing of dairy farms in the northeast has decreased. If we would have
had that in my State of North Carolina, I am convinced we would have
more dairy farmers today and this country would be better off.
I could talk more about the benefits of the compact, and I hope as
you consider your ruling, you will take this into effect, but Mr.
Chairman, I believe if we deny a vote on this amendment, that will be
most unfortunate, and the full debate of this House will not be had,
and I would yield to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert) for a comment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members, the Chair
controls the time on arguments regarding the point of order, and
members may not engage in colloquies.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, he yielded. He did not yield back his
time. He yielded to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that the
Chair controls the time on arguments both for and against this point of
order. The Chair will remind Members as well, the Chair is entertaining
arguments on the point of order. Members
[[Page H6287]]
may remain, after the ruling on the point of order, to debate the
substance of dairy policy if so desired.
Does the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) wish to be heard on
the point of order?
{time} 1215
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Does the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to offer advice to the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, clearly, listening to the debate now on
this issue, it becomes clearer and clearer that the point of order is
well taken. This is a debate about States' rights. We have heard that.
That belongs in the judiciary, not the agriculture, bill.
Now, a lot of the arguments we have heard today I share the concern.
I represent a lot of dairy farmers. They have had a lot of tough luck
here the last several years. And we are all entitled to our own
opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. Let me just remind
Members of a couple of important facts that have been underscored by
independent consultants that have looked at this.
The truth of the matter is we are losing dairy farmers at about the
same rate in States that are in the compact as those States who are
not. Now, we have heard these arguments this morning. We continue to
hear them. Well, the dairy compacts will increase the amount of net
income for dairy farmers, but it will not raise the price of milk; and
it will not cost the taxpayers anything. Well, that sounds like the
tooth fairy to me. The truth of the matter is, the only thing that we
can honestly say that the dairy compacts have succeeded in doing is to
divide the dairy farmers of the United States. That is a mistake.
At the very time that we need to speak with one voice about dairy
policy, we are speaking with different voices. We have the Northeast,
we have the Southeast, we have the people in the Southwest, we have the
Upper Midwest and we have California; and they are all speaking a
different language. They are all suffering the same consequence. We are
losing too many dairy farmers. But creating these intrastate cartels
makes no sense.
In terms of advice to the Chair, the reason that the 13 colonies came
together, one of the reasons they came together was to prevent this
very kind of thing from happening, from allowing one or two or several
States to come together to gang up against the rest. One of the
arguments the proponents forward is, well, we have 165 co-sponsors.
Well, perhaps they can get even more States into their compact and they
can get 300 cosponsors. That still does not make it right. The real
issue is whether or not States ought to be able to come together to
gang up on other States.
The net result to the Upper Midwest ultimately will be is that we
will be pinched further and further and further. In Wisconsin and in
Minnesota we are losing three to four dairy farmers every single day.
And creating compacts in the Northeast or the Southwest or the
Southeast is not going to change that. It is going to make matters
worse. So the only thing this accomplishes is it divides dairy farmers
at the very time we ought to be speaking with one voice.
A couple of years ago our colleague from Wisconsin read the formula
by which milk prices are set for our dairy farmers under the milk
marketing order system. It is the most convoluted system in the world.
And the problem with the northeast dairy compact is it makes it even
worse.
We ought to have national pooling. The cows in my district do not
know where the milk comes from. The cows in my district do not know
where the milk comes from or what it goes into. We have this
unbelievable system in the United States right now. Creating compacts
only makes it worse. It divides dairy farmers. That is the reason the
colonies came together, to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
This amendment is not in order on this bill. Perhaps we should have
the debate later, but let it work through the process in the Committee
on the Judiciary.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I do wish to be heard on the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the assertion has been made that the idea
of establishing dairy compacts is not germane to the agricultural bill,
the farm bill that is presently on the floor of this House and being
debated here. In order to believe that, we would have to be prepared to
believe that the dairy industry is not part of American agriculture;
that farm bills ought not to address themselves to the dairy industry;
and that parts of the United States ought not to have the opportunity
to participate, as they see fit, in the provisions of agricultural law
made by this Congress. That, on its face, is an absurd notion.
The dairy compact ought to be recognized in the context of this
debate; and we ought to have an opportunity, all of us, to be heard on
it, and there ought to be a vote on it on the floor this afternoon in
the context of the debate on this bill.
One of the escape hatches that the proponents of this theory have
established for themselves is the idea that this ought to be taken up
not in the context of agricultural policy but it ought to be taken up
by the Committee on the Judiciary as a matter of law under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Well, some of us might
be prepared to accept that if there was any possibility whatsoever that
the Committee on the Judiciary in this House would address itself to
this issue during the course of this Congress, but there has been no
evidence presented anywhere that the Committee on the Judiciary has any
interest in taking up this bill.
So what the proponents of the agriculture bill and the proponents of
this point of order would have us believe is, first of all, that dairy
policy has no place in the farm bill; and that, secondly, they want us
to believe the myth that the Committee on the Judiciary will take this
issue up at some point in the future. Both of them are absurd. Both of
them are false. Therefore, this point of order ought to be ruled
against, and we ought to allow this amendment to be debated here on the
floor this afternoon in the context of this 10-year agricultural bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I wish to be heard on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the individual raising
the point of order would accede to the very reasonable request advanced
by our colleague, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), that the
point of order at least be temporarily withdrawn so that we can discuss
this issue in some detail on the floor.
I think it is only fair and prudent that we request that the people's
House work the people's will. The people's House cannot work the
people's will if we have unyielding response from the committee of
basic jurisdiction. And, believe me, I have the hardest time explaining
to anyone why the dairy compact legislation is not germane to the farm
bill; that it is off on another committee, the Committee on the
Judiciary. Hard time explaining that. People think that the farm bill
should deal with farm matters, and I certainly agree.
The dairy compact will not cost the taxpayers a dime; not the Federal
taxpayers, not the State taxpayers. What it does is allow farmers to
help themselves. It gets away from the command and control notion that
Washington is the source of all wisdom and should regulate everything
and places faith and the fate of dairy farmers in the hands of State
governments and the farmers themselves. And let me tell my colleagues
that I have a lot more confidence in the farmers of America than I do a
lot of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
Over 25 States have already, by overwhelming vote, approved
legislation which has been then endorsed by each Governor, and it was
not squeaky margins. The total vote was 5,405 for the dairy compacts
and only 316 against. And then I have people come up and
[[Page H6288]]
tell me, well, if Congress passes the dairy compact legislation, it is
going to mean that the price of milk might go up. Well, if we do
approve the dairy compact legislation, there might be a penny or two a
gallon increase in the price of milk. But I tell my colleagues, we live
in a town that takes a poll every nanosecond. We poll everything. And
poll after poll proves conclusively that the American people are
sympathetic to the plight of the Nation's dairy farmers and would be
willing to accept a modest penny or two a gallon increase in the price
of milk if they were convinced that the money went to the people who
need it, the dairy farmers themselves.
In my own State of New York, we have lost 2,133 farms since 1995, and
those were figures current only as of the first of this year. My friend
from Wisconsin talks about the plight of his dairy farmers. Well, I can
assure him the same thing holds true for the dairy farmers of New York.
They are going out of business one after another. That just should not
be. If we continue on this road, pretty soon we will see an American
landscape with one after another dairy farms out of business. We will
have the concentration of all production in the hands of a very few
mega-corporate farms. And guess what? They will dictate the price to
all of us. Katy, bar the door. We do not want that.
And as a national security issue, and all of us are concerned about
national security, particularly during these very difficult times, as a
national security issue we should keep the small family dairy farms in
business. If my colleagues are concerned about urban sprawl, and boy,
everybody tells us how concerned they are about urban sprawl, think of
what we do if we allow the continued demise of the family farm and
force the family farmers to sell to the developers. All of America will
be developed.
Let me close with this thought. I have so much more that I could say,
but I think it was said best by a Wisconsin dairy farmer in the
Nation's leading dairy farm journal, Hoard's Dairyman. He said,
``Compacts are a good thing overall. Support,'' he said, ``our brother
and sister dairy farmers in the northeast and encourage compacts
elsewhere. That is in the interest of fairness.''
We are not pitting a few States against a few other States. We are
opening up the door of opportunity for all the States to do as they
wish. I would strongly urge the offerer of the point of order to
rethink that contention. And perhaps in the interest of comity, as
suggested by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), let us talk some
more in the people's House about the people's will.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to address the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
will confine his remarks to the point of order and is recognized.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I think the Chair has been
most generous in allowing Members to range beyond the focus of the
point of order. Obviously, the point of order raised by the gentleman
from Wisconsin is correct, because the committee which is considering
this legislation does not have jurisdiction with respect to the issue
of compacts.
With respect to the question of hearings, Mr. Chairman, I would point
out that I find it quaint that somehow the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) is being questioned for the lack of hearings held
by the Committee on the Judiciary, when in fact the entire compact
arrangement was imposed on the country without ever having had a
hearing in either House, and, in fact, without having a vote in this
House. The history demonstrates that the only vote that occurred was in
the other body, and the other body turned down the proposition of
compacts. Then somehow, through the process of immaculate conception,
we wound up getting dairy compacts in a conference report in violation
of the rules of both Houses.
So it seems to me it is time to uphold the rule of the House. After
that has been done, Mr. Chairman, then I would hope that we could bring
the regions of the country together on this issue, as we are trying to
bring all parties in this country together on a wide variety of issues
in light of what happened the last 3 weeks. And I would hope that we
could actively pursue some kind of a compromise on this issue. I know
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has been working to try to
develop a framework around which we might be able to achieve some
regional togetherness, for a change, which I think would be a healthy
development.
{time} 1230
Mr. Chairman, very clearly without getting into the merits of the
issue, it was clear from the beginning when compacts were imposed on
the country through an egregious violation of the rules of both
Chambers, and right now it is clear under the rules of this House that
this amendment is not germane; and, therefore, the gentleman's point of
order should stand.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington.) For what
purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania rise?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized to speak on the
point of order.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make the
statement that if milk marketing belongs in the Committee on the
Judiciary, then missile defense belongs in the Committee on
Agriculture. How many staff people on the Committee on the Judiciary
know anything about agricultural marketing systems?
There is nobody, and there should not be anybody. To use a stretch of
the rules, to use a technicality to deprive this House of a debate of
one of the most important farm issues facing this country is wrong. For
this House not to have the right to debate this issue up or down is
wrong. It is unfair.
Just last week in response to a terrorism act, we spent billions on
American airlines to help them. This bill gives millions to corporate,
rich farmers to help them. An amendment yesterday that I supported that
limited that help to $150,000, which is pretty sizable, was defeated.
Wrongly, but it was defeated.
The most important issue facing this country, dairy, what is in this
bill to help it? Not a dime. Not a word. Not any guidance, and that is
wrong.
This House needs to debate agricultural issues with the agricultural
bills before this House, not in the Committee on the Judiciary. Dairy
farmers are fighting for their life for a stable market, a stable
market. It is the most wholesome natural food we have. I have a
perspective that is different than most of my colleagues. I was a
supermarket operator for 26 years. I sold food for a living.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the food distribution system. And we have
the safest system in the world; the most cost-effective system in the
world; and we give the best, purest products to our people. When our
people go to our supermarkets and come home, they have fresh products
because we have the best system in the world.
Yes, milk is very reasonable. You can buy it for $2.50 a gallon. It
is often cheaper than soda which is flavoring, soda water, and sugar.
Milk is often cheaper than the juice drinks which are a little bit of
juice and a lot of water and sugar.
Yes, when my colleagues go to convenience stores, they pay $1.90 for
a 16-ounce or 20-ounce bottle of water. More expensive than milk. Can
we not be put in the Committee on the Judiciary? Can we have this issue
before us as part of the agricultural issue to develop a marketing
system that is fair? That allows our farmers to have a stable price.
It is okay for the moment, but for 2 years our dairy farmers produced
milk at less than what it cost. For 2 years, not 2 months, not 3
months; and it has put thousands of them out of business. The Northeast
Dairy Compact had a steadying effect upon farms with fewer farms lost
in compact States after the initiation of the compact.
A new policy is needed to address the complete failure of our current
dairy policy. Dairy compact legislation has passed in 25 States. Dairy
compacts return power to the States over fluid milk.
We must make sure that we allow a stable supply of milk and dairy
products throughout this country, that we are not hauling them from
coast to coast. We need regional dairy supplies, and the dairy compact
legislation will allow us to work towards that.
[[Page H6289]]
Consumers are not stuck with higher prices in compact States. OMB and
others found that price surveys show that compact retail prices are
more stable and not more expensive to the consumer. We just want a fair
debate on an agricultural issue with the farm bill in front of us.
I urge Mr. Chairman to rule that this issue stays before the
Committee on Agriculture where it belongs.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from
North Carolina rise?
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized to speak on
the point of order.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the point of
order, and also to say that we certainly can use a point of order when
we want to.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) discussed the incident
where we considered the appropriation for aviation. That did not go
through any committee. Members understood the urgency of waiving the
point of order so we could respond to the urgency of the airline
industry.
Well, I have come to say that the point of order should not stand in
the way of us responding to the urgency of our dairy farmers. They have
the same urgency. There needs to be some vote up or down. We should
have a right to at least debate it.
The whole issue, one of my colleagues said that this is
unconstitutional, that is a bogus argument. It has been tried in the
State court of New York and the Federal courts, and they say the
compact is constitutional. So the issue that we are putting together
something that is going to bar trade does not do that. It does not
violate that trade barrier.
Mr. Chairman, we need to find a way where agricultural issues that
have the same urgency that the people of that industry suffer, just
like the airline industry, at least we ought to be able to give them
the right to discuss it.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, when we have rules of the House that can
defeat public debate, the Chair is required to ensure that the Chair
has not stifled that debate by ensuring there will be full hearing in
the House. Now, I do not know if that has been discussed. Have you
inquired whether the Committee on the Judiciary plans to have a hearing
any time in the next 14 months?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will rule on the point of order
after hearing the arguments on the point of order.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, can I ask in the ruling on the point of
order, if the point of order is going to be insisted upon, there ought
to be a corresponding responsibility that the Committee on the
Judiciary will indeed have the obligation of hearing it? Can I ask
that?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will rule on the germaneness
point of order that has been raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
The Chair will go no further than ruling on that point of order.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the germaneness is based on the House
rule?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule after the Chair hears the arguments
on the point of order.
Mrs. CLAYTON. My point is that I do not know how the Chair can
sustain a point of order based on the House rule that there is
committee jurisdiction or there is exclusive jurisdiction unless the
Chair is asserting that that particular committee that claims that
jurisdiction plans to pursue that responsible role. Otherwise, the
Chair is part of the frustration in denying a full debate on the issue.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will advise Members there has
been a great deal of discussion regarding the point of order. The Chair
will listen to two more Members on the point of order, and then the
Chair is prepared to rule having heard the arguments.
The Chair will advise Members that they may stay after the ruling of
the Chair and seek recognition to speak to their hearts' content on the
dairy issue regardless of the Chair's ruling.
For what purpose does the gentleman from New York rise?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on Rules which
has the responsibility of technically looking at claims of
jurisdiction, waiving points of order, and other considerations
relative to the farm bill this year.
We know that it is an open rule. We recognized that the chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary wrote a very clear cover letter on the
history of jurisdiction and the judiciary responsibility over dairy
compacts, and he stated that case in his letter. The Committee on Rules
stood by that as no waivers or points of order were made on the
legislation.
So we have it before us today with a point of order that gets down to
family farmers, not technical decisions of the House of
Representatives. As some of my colleagues eloquently said before me,
September 30 expired the Northeast Dairy Compact. Those farmers in the
existing compact and those from my State that have the ability to make
the drive into that compact no longer have the compact in existence.
So when we look at jurisdiction and the aspect of respect of
jurisdiction, particularly as this legislation has had that history
since being referred there by the parliamentarian in the 1990s when the
compact concept came before us, that is a tough thing to explain to my
farmers in New York.
Mr. Chairman, I represent the largest dairy-producing county in New
York. I cannot tell them why I cannot get an up-or-down vote on farm
policy that affects their very livelihoods. In a 10-year period, the
number of dairy farms in New York drastically dropped from 13,887 to
only 8,700, a loss of more than 5,000 family farms. Though dairy farms
are going out of business at a rate of 36 percent a year.
Compacts would help save the farm lands in rural communities, and the
family farms need the assurance of stable milk prices which the compact
provides. Dairy compacts will make certain that the bottom does not
fall out on the dairy market. That has been the message of the tough
deliberation on the concept of dairy compacts that were brought before
the State, as Farm Bureaus, county by county decided to support it
years ago.
Today when we look at jurisdiction, which no one can explain back
home why the farm bill will not allow with 165 cosponsors of the
legislation calling for dairy compacts throughout the country, if those
States so desire, why there is not an up-or-down vote.
Mr. Chairman, I implore the gentleman who has raised the point of
order that we look at the possibility of that happening today, and
pleas from across the country; or, that we begin to look at when I can
look my farmers in the eye in New York and tell them there will be a
vote on the will of the Congress based on the dairy compact
legislation. Either it will pass or it will not, so we know where we go
from here. But not to have a vote, as the dairy compacts have expired
on September 30, and find us today debating a farm bill on the 2nd day,
and not having the ability to use a commonsense approach of an up-or-
down vote on the will of 165 cosponsors of this House, is something
that no one can explain outside of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I implore consideration if not today, tomorrow or the
next day, but that we proceed with hearings and a vote of finality up
or down on dairy compacts by this House.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Maine rise?
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the decision before the Chair on the point
of order is vitally important. As the gentleman from New York said,
this will be tough to explain to people in Maine because I believe, as
they believe, that the issue dealing with the dairy compact has to be
germane to the farm bill. Any other conclusion, it seems to me, is
unexplainable.
As the gentleman from New York just said, the Northeast Dairy Compact
just expired on September 30. When that compact was created in 1997,
the goal was to provide dairy farmers in the Northeast with some
modicum of
[[Page H6290]]
price stability and consumers in New England with some stability in
retail milk prices.
Mr. Chairman, 4 years later those goals have been achieved, and the
compact should be allowed to continue. What do I say to consumers in
Maine, dairy farmers in Maine. Well, the dairy compact, the future of
the dairy industry in my home State of Maine is a matter that needs to
go before the Committee on the Judiciary where there is not the
expertise to deal with it. That will not wash. That will not wash in
Maine, and it will not wash anywhere in the Northeast.
{time} 1245
Ray and Tina Ellsworth in Sabattus, Maine wrote to my office just
last week, saying that without the dairy compact, they will not be able
to afford to milk their cows. What do I tell Ray and Tina Ellsworth?
``Well, this is a matter that needs to go to the Judiciary Committee.
They don't have the expertise on the Judiciary Committee. The expertise
is on the Agriculture Committee.'' But somehow they will not understand
that kind of reasoning.
Maine consumers have very simple requests. They want a reliable
source of fresh milk, and the dairy compact makes that possible. The
dairy compact protects farmers. It costs taxpayers nothing. It does not
lead to overproduction of milk. This is a case where we have been able,
through the compact in the Northeast, to satisfy our dairy farmers, to
protect our consumers and provide stability.
The last thing I would say is, well, two things. First of all, the
desire for dairy compacts around the country is well known. Twenty-five
States have passed legislation. This is a direction that makes sense
for farmers and for consumers. But in the State of Maine, we have got
our potato industry, which is smaller than it used to be. The chicken
farms are all gone. We have got some roadside stands. Agriculture in
Maine outside of potatoes has almost everything to do with dairy. That
is all we have got, 460 dairy farms. That is it. If we lose this dairy
compact, those farms are in severe jeopardy. They probably, most of
them, will not be able to continue. And it is a travesty for us not to
be able to come to the floor of this House and have a vote, up or down,
across the country on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, you have the matter before you, but I urge you to
reject the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair has
heard the entire argument and is prepared to rule. The debate on the
merits of the point of order has been going on now for nearly an hour,
and so the Chair is prepared to rule. But the Chair would also remind
Members that under the rules providing for consideration of this bill,
Members can speak under the 5-minute rule on the merits of dairy
compacts after the point of order has been dispensed with.
The gentleman from Wisconsin raises a point of order that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not germane.
The bill, H.R. 2646, is a comprehensive agriculture bill. It
addresses programs covering nearly all of the subject matters within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. In addition to a
comprehensive treatment of agricultural law, it also addresses the
subject matters of human nutrition, forestry, and rural development,
matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. H.R.
2646 was referred to and reported by the Committee on Agriculture. It
also amends programs addressing the foreign distribution of
agricultural commodities, a matter specifically excepted from the
jurisdictional statement of the Committee on Agriculture in rule X. On
this basis, the bill was sequentially referred to and reported by the
Committee on International Relations.
The amendment would place additional terms on an existing dairy
compact and provide the consent of Congress to three new compacts. As
stated in clause 1(k) of rule X, ``Interstate compacts generally'' fall
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. The
jurisdictional origin of the compact is traced to the Constitution.
Article 1, section 10, clause 3, of the United States Constitution
provides that ``no State shall, without the consent of Congress, enter
into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign
power.'' Congress' consent is required in order to prevent interstate
agreements and compacts from harming nonparty States or conflicting
with Federal law or Federal interests. The Chair would note that a bill
in this Congress, H.R. 1827, had similar text to the amendment and was
referred solely to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no
proposition on a ``subject different that from that under consideration
shall be admitted under color of amendment.'' One of the central tenets
of the germaneness rule is that an amendment should be within the
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill. This principle is
recorded on page 682 of the House Rules and Manual. This principle is
not the exclusive test of germaneness where the proposition being
amended contains provisions so comprehensive, through amendments to
other laws, as to overlap several committees' jurisdictions. The Chair
would note a relevant precedent.
On October 8, 1985, the Committee of the Whole was considering an
omnibus agriculture bill that included provisions that were added by
floor amendments amending other laws within the jurisdiction of the
Committees of Energy and Commerce, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Ways
and Means, and Foreign Affairs. The Chair held that an amendment
conditioning eligibility in price support and payment programs upon
furnishing agricultural employees with certain labor protections,
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor, was
germane. This precedent is memorialized in Deschler-Brown Precedents,
volume 10, chapter 28, section 4.67.
While the pending bill is a comprehensive agriculture bill, it does
not amend laws within the jurisdiction of several committees, as was
the case with the 1985 precedent.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania falls
outside the jurisdictions reported in the pending text. The Chair finds
that the sweep of those jurisdictions, those of the Committee on
Agriculture and the Committee on International Relations, is not so
broad as to render that test of germaneness invalid.
The Chair therefore holds that the amendment is not germane. The
point of order is sustained.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to this issue. I do not have a dog in
this fight on dairy farmers, but it is about the rightness. It is about
the rightness to allow a vote in the People's House. The chairman of
Judiciary is against dairy compacts. It is ridiculous. That is why they
want it referred there, because it will never see the light of day in
Judiciary. He will kill it and stop this body from having a fair vote
on the issue.
The same issue happened with H.R. 218. We had 372 votes in this House
on both sides of the aisle and the chairman is opposed to that and he
killed it. He fired one of his staffers because they brought it up. And
even yesterday in a mark, let me be careful in my words, members of his
own committee were strongly told not to offer the amendment.
That is wrong, Mr. Chairman. For one person, one chairman, to have
that power to stop the people's will, either on H.R. 218 or this dairy
compact, is wrong. I will sign, which I oppose most of the time, a
discharge petition to bring it up just to bring a vote to this floor.
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in strong support, too, of the Sherwood-Etheridge-McHugh
amendment. I am proud to discuss this matter because it needs to be
voted on, dairy compacts, on this House floor.
This amendment reauthorizes a program that works, one that benefits
farmers and consumers alike. I have heard a lot of talk how it has not
worked in some parts of the country, but according to all my facts, it
has worked in the northeastern United States and we need it in the
southeast. It does not cost taxpayers anything. Payments to support
dairy producers in times of need come from the milk market itself and
outside of the compact support themselves.
From the Northeast Dairy Compact, we have learned that a compact
among
[[Page H6291]]
dairy producers will not cause overproduction. We know that rural
America is going broke today, and we know that rural America in
Mississippi and especially our agriculture community is going out of
business. A southeast dairy compact could help keep our farmers in
business.
We have also learned from compacts that they do not increase prices
for the American consumer. For example, while the Northeast Dairy
Compact provides a safety net for milk producers, the compact is
required by its charter to see that retail milk prices do not increase
disproportionately. Studies also show that the compact does not create
a trade barrier or hinder trade of products from other parts of the
country. In fact, in the Northeast Dairy Compact, trade increased by 7
percent after 1 year.
Finally, the compact does not affect Federal programs for the poor.
In fact, the compact commission, by law, reimburses the most important
Federal nutrition programs.
Let us reauthorize a system that works and allow other States to join
together to stabilize the dairy farmer, dairy industry and protect the
American consumers. Farmers and communities like Walthall County and
Tylertown, Mississippi need this legislation. In Mississippi, we had
700 dairy farmers 6 years ago. Now we are down to 300. This compact
will help keep them in business.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise, too, in strong support of the dairy compact
concept, the freestanding bill, this amendment which had been offered
on the agricultural bill, the farm bill. The opposition to the dairy
compact clearly had the right to bring their point of order, and they
did that and they did it successfully. But we just do not all have
rights, we have responsibilities, too. They have a responsibility, and
this whole body has a responsibility, to face and debate and vote on an
issue which is so important to so many American communities.
This compact legislation has existed for some time with very
significant bipartisan support. It goes to the heart, the backbone of
so many communities, in the Northeast where there has been a compact,
in the Southeast, my part of the world, where we desire a compact, and
other parts of the United States. Yet any vote, any vote whatsoever on
the entire concept, has been blocked time and time again through
procedural hurdles and often the will of single individuals. So we can
talk about rights and points of order, but we also must talk about
responsibilities. It is all of our responsibility and it is the
responsibility of this body to act and vote on this issue of vital
importance.
In Louisiana, which I represent, dairy farmers are going out of
business every week. About 80 percent of all dairies in the State are
in my part of the State in my district. And every week they are going
out of business. They are going out of business because of the extreme
volatility at times of milk prices. What the compact is designed, very
well designed, to do is stabilize, do away with those huge peaks and
valleys, stabilize that lay of the land, not as we so often do in the
area of agriculture with buckets of taxpayer dollars, but within the
milk industry itself. And this is not some wild theory, some wild
model. This is a plan that has successfully been put in place
specifically in the Northeast.
We have concrete and specific history and record to go on. And what
is that history? It is not some dramatic increase in milk prices. It is
either a modest, slight increase or no increase at all, because the
price of milk in Boston is lower significantly than in many other parts
of the country.
So this can work. This can help dairy stabilize their future. This
can do all of that without giving any shock to consumers. And it is
needed, not just by dairies but by communities, because the dairies,
because the agricultural part of those communities are often the
backbone, the spirit of those communities, in the Northeast, in the
Southeast and elsewhere around the country.
Let me end where I began, by asking those opponents of the dairy
compact to not just consider their rights to a point of order or
anything else but to join us as we all consider our responsibilities.
We have a responsibility to debate this issue, and we have a
responsibility to have a vote on this issue. We need that vote. We need
that debate. We cannot simply go on forever and never have any vote on
the issue. That is just flat out ridiculous when there is such wide,
significant and bipartisan support for this significant legislation.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot from representatives who clearly
are articulating with great passion for their own constituents, their
own farming constituents. But make no mistake about it, if you utilize
this tool, these interstate dairy compacts, to help your farmers, you
are hurting the ones I represent. And any extension or further
expansion of dairy compacts will hurt the farmers I represent even
more.
We must find a dairy policy that helps all dairy farmers in this
country, not just regional interstate dairy compacts that help some.
{time} 1300
There are hard-working Members of this Congress who are seeking to do
that. I hope that we will have a debate later on a germane amendment to
this bill that seeks to do precisely that. But, unfortunately, the
reason this was not germane is because we are using a very archaic tool
in the form of interstate dairy compacts in order to achieve something
that should be achieved in another manner, a way to help all dairy
farmers.
I serve on the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law, and I wanted to respond to the
comment that there might not be the sufficient expertise on that
committee to deal with this issue. The gentleman who just spoke from
Louisiana and myself both represent dairy farmers. We both sit on that
subcommittee and sat on it last year when we spent almost 7 hours
dealing with this issue in markup and debate. The committee has dealt
with this issue.
As to those who have made comments about the necessity for a debate
and a fair vote on this floor on the compacts, I just want to remind
you how we got compacts in the first place, because my constituents
never got a fair debate or a fair vote when compacts were first
approved. When it was stuck into a conference committee report in the
middle of the night, that issue was never debated on this floor; it
never got a vote. My constituents have suffered from the results of
that.
I feel I have a responsibility to them, and I take that
responsibility very seriously. We have got to find another way to help
all dairy farmers and the dairy industry in these United States, other
than interstate compacts.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to pay a compliment to the
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest),
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). They
found themselves in a very difficult position on this issue in that
they do not have technical jurisdiction; and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Combest), from my personal perspective, was very gracious in
bringing some of us in and trying to work a way through this very
difficult question and one over which, as the Chair has so, may I say,
Mr. Chairman, eloquently and very thoroughly reviewed and ruled on the
technicality of germaneness.
But I want to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from
Louisiana, who spoke at this very podium a few moments ago with respect
to the great difference between technical rights and responsibilities.
Several Members today, including the gentlewoman who preceded me, have
spoken accurately about the fact that the current compact came about in
ways which, in their perspective, was not adherent to the normal
practices of this Congress, certainly this House. As I said before the
Committee on Rules not so many hours ago, that is an issue on which we
all agree.
I have been involved with the compact since my days in the State
senate in 1985, where I was fortunate enough, from my perspective, to
have the opportunity to help write the first version of that; and I can
tell you that
[[Page H6292]]
I have no joy in the fact that the Northeast Compact exists as it does
today through the process that was followed.
But I would say to the gentlewoman, and I would say to my friend, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who also accurately noted the
process to create this dairy compact, how can you say and complain
about no debate, and then act very deliberately today to prevent the
debate?
There are a lot of things that are points of disagreement on merits.
We have heard a lot of, as I have heard so many times in the past, Mr.
Chairman, claims that are laid as fact that are simply untrue; claims
of effects on consumers, where reports from OMB, reports from the USDA,
reports from various ACNielsen scanner data, and on and on and on, have
rejected those arguments. We have heard about consumer impacts that are
certainly and without question unfounded, and on and on and on.
As much as I would not just welcome, I would relish the chance to
engage in a debate on those merits so we can lay out the facts and let
Members decide to vote as they will, we are precluded again this day.
Speaking now as more of a plea, Mr. Chairman, I take no joy as well
in the very fact that, as has been related here today, and giving
credit to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin about the pain that dairy
farmers are feeling across this Nation, including her State and her
region, and, as I have been saying on the floor of this House now for
at least the past 4 years, I very much want to work with any Member to
try to do everything we can to help all dairy farmers, because they are
alike, they are hard-working individuals, they need assistance, and,
frankly, we need to help them, because they help us so much.
But the inability for those of us to have the opportunity on the
floor of the people's House for just a debate and just an honest, open
vote to decide this issue, creates frustration that I doubt few can
truly comprehend.
It is with great sadness I stand here today, Mr. Chairman, but with
no animosity, and, again, with a plea to those who are in a position to
effect a change in the developments of this day, that we be provided
that opportunity as Members rightfully elected from our individual
districts.
In closing, again, a word of appreciation and friendship to the
chairman and the ranking member.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will
designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas:
At the end of Subtitle C of title VII (page 313, after line
10), insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DEVELOPING WORLD.
(a) Grant Program.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish a program to award grants to entities described in
subsection (b) for the development of agricultural
biotechnology with respect to the developing world. The
Secretary shall administer and oversee the program through
the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department of
Agriculture.
(b) Partnerships.--(1) In order to be eligible to receive a
grant under this section, the grantee must be a participating
institution of higher education, a nonprofit organization, or
consortium of for profit institutions with in-country
agricultural research institutions.
(2) A participating institution of higher education shall
be an historically black or land-grant college or university,
an Hispanic serving institution, or a tribal college or
university that has agriculture or the biosciences in its
curricula.
(c) Competitive Award.--Grants shall be awarded under this
section on a merit-reviewed competitive basis.
(d) Use of Funds.--The activities for which the grant funds
may be expended include the following:
(1) Enhancing the nutritional content of agricultural
products that can be grown in the developing world to address
malnutrition through biotechnology.
(2) Increasing the yield and safety of agricultural
products that can be grown in the developing world through
biotechnology.
(3) Increasing through biotechnology the yield of
agricultural products that can be grown in the developing
world that are drought and stress-resistant.
(4) Extending the growing range of crops that can be grown
in the developing world through biotechnology.
(5) Enhancing the shelf-life of fruits and vegetables grown
in the developing world through biotechnology.
(6) Developing environmentally sustainable agricultural
products through biotechnology.
(7) Developing vaccines to immunize against life-
threatening illnesses and other medications that can be
administered by consuming genetically engineered agricultural
products.
(e) Funding Source.--Of the funds deposited in the Treasury
account known as the Initiative for Future Agriculture and
Food Systems on October 1, 2003, and each October 1
thereafter through October 1, 2007, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall use $5,000,000 during each of fiscal years
2004 through 2008 to carry out this section.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer
this amendment for myself, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne),
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) to encourage research
and development of agriculture biotechnology with respect to the
developing world.
Agricultural biotechnology offers innovative solutions to some of the
most intractable problems facing the developing world, such as hunger,
malnutrition and disease. Many of us are familiar with the newly
developed strain of golden rice that was developed by plant scientists
to have increased vitamin A and iron content. Vitamin A deficiency
causes more than 1 million childhood deaths each year, and is the
single most prevalent cause of blindness among children in the
developing world.
Golden rice is only the beginning of the potential benefits of
biotechnology for the developing world. Biotechnology can help
developing countries produce higher crop yields while using fewer
pesticides and herbicides, and can also promote sustainable
agriculture, leading to food and economic security. By increasing crop
yields, the amount of land that needs to be farmed is reduced.
Biotechnology can also improve the health of citizens of developing
countries by combatting illness. Substantial progress has been made in
the developed world on vaccines against life-threatening illnesses; but
unfortunately, infrastructure limitations often hinder the
effectiveness of traditional vaccination methods in some parts of the
developing words. For example, many vaccines must be kept refrigerated
until they are injected. Even if a health clinic has electricity and is
able to deliver effective vaccines, the cost of multiple needles can
hinder vaccination efforts. Additionally, the improper use of
hypodermic needles can spread HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
Biotechnology offers a prospect of orally delivering vaccines to
immunize against life-threatening illnesses through agriculture
products in a safe and effective manner.
Because of the immense potential of agriculture biotechnology to help
solve some of the developing world's most serious problems, I am
offering this amendment that will establish a grant program under the
Secretary of Agriculture to encourage research and development of
agriculture biotechnology with respect to the developing world.
The amendment calls for $5 million per year for 5 years, beginning in
fiscal year 2004. Eligible grant recipients include historically black
colleges and land grant colleges or universities, Hispanic serving
institutions, and tribal colleges and universities. Nonprofit
organizations and a consortia of for-profit institutions with in-
country research institutions are also eligible. Grants will be awarded
on a competitive merit-reviewed basis.
I feel that this effort will go a long way in helping to provide food
in an independent manner for our developing countries, as well as
combatting disease.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding, and
I appreciate her leadership on this extremely important issue.
Certainly agricultural biotechnology, such as golden rice, which is a
product with enhanced vitamin A, already is
[[Page H6293]]
being used to solve problems of childhood blindness among cultures
whose diets are heavily dependent upon rice but would normally be
deficient in this important vitamin; and I think this is just one
example of some of the benefits that can come from biotechnology.
As I believe our staffs have discussed, there are some technical
issues regarding the structure of the amendment which we would like to
work with the gentlewoman on as we proceed through conference. The
gentlewoman has been very agreeable to do that, and I appreciate that.
I will just say that the committee is prepared to accept the
amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time,
I thank the gentleman very much, and thanks also to the ranking member
for his hard work on this bill. I ask for support for this measure.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to the dairy compact. I do want
to talk about the sadness that I feel about what has happened to the
Northeast area compact. I understand the ruling, and we were pretty
sure before we got here that it was going to be ruled out of order. But
I do nonetheless want to strongly express my support for this
amendment.
It seems that the Congress giveth and the Congress taketh away; and
once again, the dairy farmers that I have been working with in the 15
years I have been here are going to be in serious trouble once again.
The dairy compact has been instrumental in helping dairy farmers not
only in New York. We are not selfish enough to ask for anything just
for ourselves. But it helps people across the country, because all they
do is establish a minimum safety net price to be paid to dairy
producers on Class I milk only.
Just as milk does the body good, the dairy compact does the economy
and the dairy farmer good. Dairy is important to the entire Northeast
and the rest of the country because of the economic contributions it
makes, both in dollars and jobs. Without the Northeast Dairy Compact,
thousands of dairy farmers will be forced out of business and consumers
will suffer increased prices as a reflection of the forced
transportation costs.
In addition to helping family farmers stay afloat, the Northeast
Dairy Compact has helped save farmland that would have normally been
lost to urban sprawl. For many of us, there is nothing more heart
breaking than seeing wonderful farmland and dairyland going under the
bulldozer. As a sign of odd bedfellows, both dairy farmers and
environmentalists have come together to support dairy compacts.
Again, I am proud to join my Northeast colleagues in support of not
only continuing the Northeast dairy compact, but expanding it.
Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Johnson-Payne-Watson amendment to H.R. 2646 the ``Farm Bill''. This
amendment establishes a grant program under the Secretary of
Agriculture to support research and development of American programs in
agricultural biotechnology. Information provided by these programs can
address the food and economic needs of the developing world.
Biotechnology can help developing countries produce higher crop
yields while using fewer pesticides and herbicides. Biotechnology can
also promote sustainable agriculture, leading to food and economic
security. Biotechnology offers the prospect of delivering vaccines to
immunize against life-threatening illnesses through agricultural
products in a safe and effective manner. Advances in biotechnology can
overcome the infrastructure and cost limitations faced by traditional
vaccination methods in the developing world.
One obstacle for biotechnology in the developing world is the
capacity of scientific organizations and public funding for
agricultural research. For example, Africa's crop production is the
lowest in the world. 200 million people on the African continent alone
are chronically malnourished. Increased funding for international
programs from the United States would have a great impact on the
problem. Eligible grant recipients include historically black colleges
and universities, land grant colleges, Hispanic-serving institutions,
and tribal colleges, or universities. Non-profit, for profit, and other
in-country agricultural research centers are also eligible.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote for vitamin-enhanced
foods, higher in protein, fruits and vegetables with longer shelf
lives, reduced rate of habitat destruction, increased crop yields and
sustainable agriculture. These are just a few benefits that would
result from the $5 million per for 5 years, beginning in fiscal year
2004. Vote ``yes'' on the Johnson-Payne-Watson Amendment to H.R. 2646.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there any Member that wishes to speak on
the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson)?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have a comment about the dairy compact. The dairy
compact should be extended during the renegotiation of the process
while we deal with the issues of stabilizing the infrastructure, the
important infrastructure, that supports not only the dairy industry at
large, but, more importantly, the farm, the dairy farm, in many places
where you find it around the diverse landscape of this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
{time} 1315
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
speaking in favor of the Northeast Dairy Compact.
I rise today also in support of the compact for a number of reasons.
As I stand here today, approximately 11 years after offering my first
amendment as a Member of Congress to the 1990 Farm Bill, a dairy
provision, I never envisioned that it would be this difficult to get a
vote on an issue of such great importance to the farmers not only of my
district, but throughout the country.
As many of my colleagues wait in anticipation of an up-or-down vote
on the extension and expansion of the Northeast Dairy Compact, I recall
it has been almost 2 years now since I stood in this Chamber and
announced my opposition to the agriculture appropriations bill, a
committee of which I am a member. At the same time, we had assurances
all the way along through subcommittee, full committee, and then going
into conference, that we would be able to address the dairy issue; but
unfortunately, that was denied us also. In fact, the conference never
actually concluded its work. We did not even have the opportunity to
offer amendments or to debate these critical issues.
As the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out, I did offer an
amendment in the 2002 Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee but
withdrew it at the request of the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), in hopes of getting consideration
of the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary. The Committee on the
Judiciary has objected to this amendment and have claimed jurisdiction,
and they have said it is not germane. If it is the responsibility of
the Committee on the Judiciary, why do they offer to hold no hearings?
Why did they propose no legislation? Why did they let the clock run
out? Why did they let the clock run out not only on the dairy compact,
but on thousands of farmers all over the country? The clock is also
running out on my New York dairy farmers. In just 5 years, we have gone
from 10,000 to just over 7,000 dairy farms.
As many of my colleagues will point out today, dairy compacts are the
best available safety net for producers of class 1 drinking milk. They
are governed by a commission of consumers and processors and farmers to
ensure a fresh local supply and a fair price.
I think the biggest benefit of compacts is they do not cost the
taxpayer one single dollar. Payments come from the milk market, they
are countercyclical, and are made to farmers only when the prices fall
below the marketing order price.
We should recognize the initiative of 25 States who voted to
authorize dairy compacts for their farmers and for their consumers at
no expense to the Federal Government. We should embrace their reactions
and continue a program that returned $140 million in over-order
payments since its inception to farmers in the Northeast.
Many factors cause farmers to go out of business, including health,
lack of interested parties to continue the business, nonstop work
schedule, or land
[[Page H6294]]
development opportunities. By providing a more livable income, the
compact addresses one factor, among many others, that encourages
farmers to keep farming. For farmers able, willing, and interested in
continuing dairy farming, compacts provide a reliable source of
assistance. This is critical as dairy farmers are key components to the
survival of our rural communities.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood)
and the rest of the forces on this Congress from across the country who
have risen to support the dairy compact.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I did not speak to the discussion of the point of
order, and I commend my colleagues who did get up and speak for so
doing. We did know what the ruling was going to be, but nevertheless,
the discussion was critically important. To think that a dairy compact
could not be discussed in the context of this bill really has no
description. I think we understand why this came about, and it really
is discouraging in the sense that this is the people's House. As far as
I understand, dairy farmers around the country make up the population
of the United States. They are the people and they ought to have an
opportunity to have their interests, their concerns, their
frustrations, their livelihood, their economics discussed in this body.
In terms of my own State of Connecticut, this compact is vital. It is
vital to the existence of our dairy farms, each one of them a small
family farm. And, like others who have spoken here this afternoon, this
is vital to a way of life that is being jeopardized.
The compact serves as a safety net for these dairy farmers by
maintaining stable milk prices for them over the course of a year. In
the year 2000, it returned $4.8 million in income back to Connecticut's
farmers. This is an average of about $21,000 per farmer. These dollars
are helped to reverse a serious, long-term trend in my State: the loss
of family farms.
Since the compact, there has been no overproduction in New England.
In fact, there has been a decrease in milk production, whereas other
parts of the country have witnessed dramatic increases. Over 99 percent
of CCC purchases of surplus dairy products came from the Midwest and
the West.
The compact costs the taxpayer nothing, as my colleagues have pointed
out. Payments come from the milk market and are only made to farmers
when the compact commission price is below the Federal milk marketing
price. So, in most months, farmers do not receive compact payments.
I would just say to my colleagues, it is truly unfortunate when, in
this body, we cannot discuss an issue that is of grave concern to
farmers in this country. The dairy farmers are part of this effort. We
have today excluded them from the opportunity to have their economic
crisis defended when just about every other economic crisis of any
group in this Nation gets a hearing, gets time on the floor, and gets
substantial quantities of money to make themselves whole. Shame on this
House for ignoring this country's dairy farmers.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their
consideration here today. I would like to thank my 20 colleagues that
have spoken on behalf of dairy compacts. We have shown that they are
good for jobs, they are good for the rural economy, they are good for
the environment, because we know that when that milk production is
spread out across the country, instead of in great cattle-feeding
operations, it is spread out across the country, it is good for the
environment. We know it is good for food safety, and it is a weapon
against bioterrorism, because when the food supply is spread out close
to the consuming public and not in one location or two locations across
the country, we are much more flexible.
This is an issue whose time has come. The New England dairy compact
has been an experiment that worked and it has proven to us it worked.
Believe me, I am not a theorist. I am a hard-nosed businessman that was
in business for 30 years before I came to this Chamber, and I do not
believe in theory, I believe in practice.
The New England dairy compact has worked. We have shown that there
are overwhelmingly 25 State legislatures that want this. We have
cosponsors, 165 of them, from 30 States in the Nation. The time has
come that we need to get around the procedural rules of this House that
make ridiculous statements that milk and farm issues are not on the
farm bill, they are on the judiciary bill. We need to revisit some of
these things. We need to show the United States of America and our
hardworking farmers that we are interested in what they do and we are
interested in a strong, fresh, stable supply of drinking milk. It is
time to bring this issue to a head.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Boehlert
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Boehlert:
Strike title II and insert the following:
TITLE II--CONSERVATION
Subtitle A--Farm and Ranch Preservation
SEC. 201. FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.
Section 388 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3830 note) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 388. FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment and Purpose.--The Secretary of
Agriculture (in this section referred to as the
``Secretary'') shall carry out a farmland protection program
for the purpose of protecting farm and ranch lands with
prime, unique, or other productive uses and agricultural
lands that contain historic or archaeological resources, by
limiting the nonagricultural uses of the lands. Under the
program, the Secretary may provide matching grants to
eligible entities described in subsection (d) to facilitate
their purchase of--
``(1) permanent conservation easements in such lands; or
``(2) conservation easements or other interests in such
lands when the lands are subject to a pending offer from a
State or local government.
``(b) Conservation Plan.--Any highly erodible land for
which a conservation easement or other interest is purchased
using funds made available under this section shall be
subject to the requirements of a conservation plan that
requires, at the option of the Secretary of Agriculture, the
conversion of the cropland to less intensive uses.
``(c) Maximum Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost
of purchasing a conservation easement under subsection (a)(1)
may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of purchasing the
easement.
``(d) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term
`eligible entity' means any of the following:
``(1) An agency of a State or local government.
``(2) A federally recognized Indian tribe.
``(3) Any organization that is organized for, and at all
times since its formation has been operated principally for,
1 or more of the conservation purposes specified in clause
(i), (ii), or (iii) of section 170(h)(4)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and--
``(A) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code;
``(B) is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the
Code; and
``(C) is described in paragraph (2) of section 509(a) of
the Code, or paragraph (3) of such section, but is controlled
by an organization described in paragraph (2) of such
section.
``(e) Grant Factors.--Among the factors the Secretary shall
consider in making grants under this section, the Secretary
shall consider the extent to which States are encouraging or
adopting measures to protect farmland and ranchland from
conversion to non-agricultural uses.
``(f) Title; Enforcement.--An eligible entity may hold
title to a conservation easement purchased using grant funds
provided under subsection (a)(1) and enforce the conservation
requirements of the easement.
``(g) State Certification.--As a condition of the receipt
by an eligible entity of a grant under subsection (a)(1), the
attorney general of the State in which the conservation
easement is to be purchased using the grant funds shall
certify that the conservation easement to be purchased is in
a form that is sufficient, under the laws of the State, to
achieve the purposes of the farmland protection program and
the terms and conditions of the grant.
``(h) Funding.--
``(1) Use of commodity credit corporation funds.--The
Secretary shall use not more than $100,000,000 in fiscal year
2002, $200,000,000 in fiscal year 2003, $350,000,000 in
fiscal year 2004, $450,000,000 in fiscal year 2005, and
$500,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011, of
the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out
this section.
``(2) Limitation on technical assistance.--To provide
technical assistance to carry out this section, the Secretary
may use not more than 10 percent of the amount made available
for any fiscal year under paragraph (1).
[[Page H6295]]
``(i) Grants and Assistance To Enhance Farm Viability.--For
each year for which funds are available for the program under
this section, the Secretary may use not more than $10,000,000
to provide matching market development grants and technical
assistance to farm and ranch operators who participate in the
program. As a condition of receiving such a grant, the
grantee shall provide an amount equal to the grant from non-
Federal sources.''.
SEC. 202. SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS.
Section 2501(a)(3) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$15,000,000
from the Commodity Credit Corporation''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``Any agency of the
Department of Agriculture may participate jointly in any
grant or contract entered in furtherance of the objectives of
this section if it agreed that the objectives of the grant or
contract will further the authorized programs of the
contributing agency.''.
Subtitle B--Environmental Stewardship On Working Lands
SEC. 211. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.
Section 1240 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa) is amended--
(1) by striking ``to--'' and all that follows through
``provides'' and inserting ``to provide'';
(2) inserting ``air'' after ``that face the most serious
threats to'';
(3) by redesignating the subparagraphs (A) through (D) that
follow the matter amended by paragraph (2) of this section as
paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively;
(4) by moving each of such redesignated provisions 2 ems to
the left; and
(5) by striking ``farmers and ranchers'' each place it
appears and inserting ``producers''.
SEC. 212. DEFINITIONS.
Section 1240A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-1) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``nonindustrial private forest land,''
before ``and other land''; and
(B) by striking all after ``poses a serious threat to'' and
inserting ``air, soil, water, or related resources.''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, including
nonindustrial private forestry'' before the period.
SEC. 213. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Reauthorization.--Section 1240B(a)(1) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(a)(1)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.
(b) Incentive Payments.--Section 1240B of such Act (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-2) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(h) Watershed Quality Incentive Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall create a program to
improve water quality in individual watersheds nationwide.
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the program
shall be administered in accordance with the terms of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
``(2) Consistency with watershed plan.--In allocating funds
under this subsection, the Secretary shall consider the
extent to which an application for the funds is consistent
with a locally developed watershed plan, in addition to the
other factors established by section 1240C.
``(3) Contracts.--The Secretary shall enter into contracts
in accordance with this section with producers whose
activities affect water quality, including the quality of
public drinking water supplies, to implement and maintain
nutrient management, pest management, soil erosion practices,
and other conservation activities that protect water quality
and protect human health. The contracts shall--
``(A) describe the nutrient management, pest management or
soil loss practices to be implemented, maintained, or
improved;
``(B) contain a schedule of implementation;
``(C) address water quality priorities of the watershed in
which the operation is located to the greatest extent
possible; and
``(D) contain such other terms as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate.
``(4) Voluntary water quality benefits evaluation.--On
approval of the producer, the Secretary may include the cost
of water quality benefits evaluation as part of a contract
entered into under this section.
``(5) Drinking water suppliers pilot program.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot
program in 15 watersheds to improve water quality in
cooperation with local water utilities.
``(B) Pilot program.--The Secretary shall select the
watersheds and make available funds to be allocated to
producers in partnership with drinking water utilities in the
watersheds, provided that drinking water utilities measure
water quality and target incentives payments to improve water
quality.
``(6) Nutrient reduction pilot program.--The Secretary
shall use up to $100,000,000 annually of the funds provided
under this subsection in 5 impaired watersheds each year to
provide incentives for agricultural producers to reduce
nitrogen and phosphorous applications by at least 15 percent
below the average rates used by comparable farms in the
State. Incentive payments shall reflect the extent to which
producers reduce nitrogen and phosphorous applications.
``(7) Recognition of state efforts.--The Secretary shall
recognize the financial contribution of States, among other
factors, during the allocation of funding under this
subsection.''.
(c) Non-Federal Assistance.--Section 1240B(g) of such Act
(16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(g)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``drinking water utility'' after
``forestry agency,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, cost-share payments, and incentives''
after ``technical assistance''.
SEC. 214. EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND PAYMENTS.
Section 1240C of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-3) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1240C. EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND PAYMENTS.
``The Secretary shall establish a ranking process and
benefits index to prioritize technical assistance, cost-share
payments, and incentives payments to producers to maximize
soil and water quality and wildlife habitat and other
environmental benefits per dollar expended. The ranking
process shall be weighted to ensure that technical
assistance, cost-share payments, and incentives are provided
to small or socially-disadvantaged farmers (as defined in
section 8(a)(5) of the Small Business Act). The Secretary
shall consult with local, State, and Federal public and
private entities to develop the ranking process and benefits
index.''.
SEC. 215. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.
Section 1240G of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-7) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting
``$30,000''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting
``$150,000'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) to share the cost of digesters.''; and
(3) by striking subsection (c).
SEC. 216. REAUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING.
Section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.
SEC. 217. FUNDING.
Section 1241(b)(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3841(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$130,000,000'' and all that follows
through ``2002'' and inserting ``$200,000,000 for fiscal year
2001, $1,000,000,000 in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and
$1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2011'';
(2) by inserting ``(other than under section 1240B(h))''
before the period; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``In addition, the
Secretary shall make available for the program under section
1240B(h), $450,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 and 2003,
$500,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $650,000,000 for fiscal
year 2005, and $700,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2011, to provide incentive payments to producers who
implement watershed quality incentive contracts.''.
SEC. 218. ALLOCATION FOR LIVESTOCK AND OTHER CONSERVATION
PRIORITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 1241(b)(2) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''; and
(2) by inserting ``(other than under section 1240B(h))''
before ``shall''.
(b) Agricultural Sustainability.--Section 1241(b) of such
Act (16 U.S.C. 3841(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Targeting of practices to promote agricultural
sustainability.--
``(A) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary
shall attempt to dedicate at least 10 percent of the funding
in this subsection to each of the following practices to
promote agricultural sustainability:
``(i) Managed grazing.
``(ii) Innovative manure management.
``(iii) Surface and groundwater conservation through
improved irrigation efficiency and other practices.
``(iv) Pesticide and herbicide reduction, including
practices that reduce direct human exposure.
``(B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
``(i) Managed grazing.--The term `managed grazing' means
practices which frequently rotate animals on grazing lands to
enhance plant health, limit soil erosion, protect ground and
surface water quality, or benefit wildlife.
``(ii) Innovative manure management.--The term `innovative
manure management' means manure management technologies
which--
``(I) eliminate the discharge of animal waste to surface
and groundwaters through direct discharge, seepage, and
runoff;
``(II) substantially eliminate atmospheric emissions of
ammonia;
``(III) substantially eliminate the emission of odor;
``(IV) substantially eliminate the release of disease-
transmitting vectors and pathogens;
``(V) substantially eliminate nutrient heavy metal
contamination; or
``(VI) encourage reprocessing and cost-effective
transportation of animal waste.
``(ii) Improved irrigation efficiency.--The term `improved
irrigation efficiency' means the use of new or upgraded
irrigation systems that conserve water, including the use
of--
[[Page H6296]]
``(I) spray jets or nozzles which improve water
distribution efficiency;
``(II) irrigation well meters;
``(III) surge valves and surge irrigation systems; and
``(IV) conversion of equipment from gravity or flood
irrigation to sprinkler or drip irrigation, including center
pivot systems.''.
Subtitle C--Preservation of Wildlife Habitat
SEC. 221. WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM.
(a) Extension and Funding Increase.--Section 387(c) of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (16
U.S.C. 3836a) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Funding.--To carry out this section, there shall be
made available $200,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 and 2003,
$350,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $450,000,000 for fiscal
year 2005, $500,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006
through fiscal year 2009, $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2010,
and $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.''.
(b) Additional Incentives for Wildlife Conservation.--
Section 387(b) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3836(b)) is amended by
inserting ``, or for other costs relating to wildlife
conservation,'' before ``approved by the Secretary''.
(c) Program Modifications.--Section 387 of such Act (16
U.S.C. 3836a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Incentive Payments.--The Secretary may provide
incentive payments to landowners in exchange for the
implementation of land management practices designed to
create or preserve wildlife habitat. The payments may be in
an amount and at a rate determined by the Secretary to be
necessary to encourage a landowner to engage in the practice.
``(e) Funding Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority
to landowners whose lands contain important habitat for
imperiled species or habitat identified by State conservation
plans, where available.
``(f) Consultation.--To the extent practicable, the
Secretary shall consult with local, State, Federal and
private experts, as considered appropriate by the Secretary,
to ensure that projects under this section maximize
conservation benefits and are regionally equitable.
``(g) Acquisition of Easements.--Beginning with fiscal year
2003, not more than 10 percent of the funds available shall
be used to acquire permanent easements, provided that land
enrolled in an easement is not land taken out of agricultural
production''.
SEC. 222. WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM.
(a) Enrollment Authority.--Section 1237(b)(1) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(b)(1)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(1) Enrollment.--The Secretary shall enroll in the
wetlands reserve program a total of not less than 250,000
acres in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and not less than
250,000 acres in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2011.''.
(b) Regional Equity.--Section 1237 of such Act (16 U.S.C.
3837) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this sentence, the Secretary shall devise a plan
to promote wetlands conservation in all regions where
opportunities exist for wetlands restoration.''.
SEC. 223. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.
(a) Enrollment Authority.--Section 1231 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''; and
(B) by striking ``and water'' and inserting ``, water, and
wildlife'';
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``36,400,000'' and inserting
``45,000,000''; and
(B) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''; and
(3) in subsection (h)(1), by striking ``and 2002'' and
inserting ``through 2011''.
(b) Eligibility.--Section 1231(b) of such Act (16 U.S.C.
3831(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) pasture, hay, and rangeland if the land will be
restored as a wetland, or is within 300 feet of a riparian
area and will be restored in native vegetation; and''; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) if the Secretary determines that--
``(i) the lands contribute to the degradation of soil,
water, or air quality, or would pose an on-site or off-site
environmental threat to soil, water, or air quality if
permitted to remain in agricultural production; and
``(ii) soil, water, and air quality objectives with respect
to the land cannot be achieved under the environmental
quality incentives program established under chapter 4;'';
(B) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) if the Secretary determines that enrollment of the
lands would contribute to conservation of ground or surface
water.
For purposes of the program under this subchapter, buffer
strips on lands used for the production of fruits,
vegetables, sod, orchards, or specialty crops shall be
considered cropland.''.
(c) Environmentally Sensitive Lands and Buffer Strips.--
Section 1231(d) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``Until December 31, 2007,
of the acreage authorized for enrollment, not less than
7,000,000 acres shall be used to enroll environmentally
sensitive lands through the continuous enrollment program and
the conservation reserve enhancement program.''.
(d) Limited Permanent Easement Authority.--Section 1231(e)
of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3831(e)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Permanent easements.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Secretary may enroll up to 3,000,000 acres in the
conservation reserve using permanent easements to protect
critically important environmentally sensitive lands
(including 1,000,000 acres for isolated wetlands) and
habitats such as native prairies, native shrublands, small
wetlands, springs, seeps, fens, and other rare and declining
habitats. The terms of the easement shall be consistent with
section 1232(a).
``(B) Limitations on transferability.--The Secretary may
transfer a permanent easement established under subparagraph
(A) to a State or local government or a qualified nonprofit
conservation organization. The holder of such a permanent
easement may not transfer the easement to an entity other
than a State or local government or a qualified nonprofit
conservation organization.''.
(e) Continuous Enrollment of Buffer Strips.--Section 1231
of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3831) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(i) Continuous Enrollment of Buffer Strips.--The
Secretary shall allow continuous enrollment of buffers whose
width and vegetation is designed to provide significant
wildlife or water quality benefits, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(j) Irrigated Lands.--Irrigated lands shall be enrolled
at irrigated land rates unless the Secretary determines that
other compensation is appropriate.
``(k) Exception to Payment Limitation.--Payments made in
connection with the enrollment of lands pursuant to the
continuous enrollment or the conservation reserve enhancement
program shall not be subject to any payment limitations under
section 1239c(f)(1).
``(l) Limited Exceptions to Prohibitions on Economic
Uses.--Notwithstanding the prohibitions on economic use on
lands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program under
section 1232(a), the Secretary may permit on such lands the
collection of native seeds and the use of wind turbines, so
long as such activities preserve the conservation values of
the land and take into account wildlife and wildlife
habitat.''.
SEC. 224. CONSERVATION OF PRIVATE GRAZING LANDS.
Section 386 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 2005b) is amended by striking
subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Incentive Payments.--The Secretary may enter into 5-
year, 10-year and 20-year contracts with landowners to
provide financial assistance for landowner efforts to improve
the ecological health of grazing lands, including practices
that reduce erosion, employ prescribed burns, restore
riparian area, control or eliminate exotic species,
reestablish native grasses, or otherwise enhance wildlife
habitat.
``(g) Authorization of Funding.--The Secretary shall make
available $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002
through 2011 from the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry
out this section.''.
SEC. 225. GRASSLAND RESERVE AND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.
Chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830-3837f) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``Subchapter D--Grassland Reserve and Enhancement Program
``SEC. 1238. GRASSLAND RESERVE AND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
program to use contracts and easements to protect 3,000,000
acres of environmentally critical grasslands, shrubs, and
blufflands. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, the Secretary
shall conduct outreach to inform the public of the program.
``(b) Enrollment Conditions.--
``(1) Maximum enrollment.--The total number of acres
enrolled in the program shall not exceed 3,000,000 acres. The
Secretary shall enroll lands using permanent easements to
meet demand, but in no case shall more than 50 percent of the
available acreage be enrolled in permanent easements, and the
balance shall be enrolled in contracts through which the
Secretary shall provide assistance and incentive payments.
``(2) Terms of contracts or easements.--The Secretary shall
enroll in the program for a willing owner not less than 100
contiguous acres of land west of the 100th meridian or not
less than 50 contiguous acres of land east of the 90th
meridian through 10-year or 20-year contracts or permanent
easements.
``(c) Eligible Land.--Land shall be eligible to be enrolled
in the program if the Secretary determines that--
``(1) the land is natural grass or shrubland;
``(2) the land--
``(A) is located in an area that has been historically
dominated by natural grass or shrubland; and
``(B) has potential to serve as habitat for animal or plant
populations of significant ecological value if the land is
restored to natural grass or shrubland; or
[[Page H6297]]
``(3) the land is adjacent to land described in paragraph
(1) or (2), and the Secretary determines it is necessary to
maintain or restore native grassland or shrubland under this
section.
``(d) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--To
carry out this section, there shall be available for each of
fiscal years 2002 through 2011 such sums as may be necessary
from the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation.
``SEC. 1238A. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS.
``(a) Requirements of Landowner.--To be eligible to enroll
land in the program, the owner of the land shall--
``(1) agree to comply with the terms of the contract and
related restoration agreements; and
``(2) agree to the suspension of any existing cropland base
and allotment history for the land under any program
administered by the Secretary.
``(b) Terms of Contract or Easement.--A contract or
easement under subsection (a) shall--
``(1) permit--
``(A) common grazing practices on the land in a manner that
is consistent with maintaining the viability of natural grass
and shrub species indigenous to that locality;
``(B) haying, mowing, or haying for seed production, except
that such uses shall not be permitted until after the end of
the nesting and brood-rearing season for birds in the local
area which are in significant decline or are conserved
pursuant to State or Federal law, as determined by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service State conservationist;
``(C) construction of fire breaks and fences, including
placement of the posts necessary for fences; and
``(D) practices that reduce erosion, restore native
species, control and eradicate exotic species, enhance
habitat for native wildlife, and improve the health of
riparian areas;
``(2) prohibit--
``(A) forestry and the production of any agricultural
commodity (other than hay);
``(B) unless allowed under subsection (d), the conduct of
any other activity that would disturb the surface of the land
covered by the contract or easement; and
``(C) the development of homes, businesses or other
structures on land subject to the contract or easement; and
``(3) include such additional provisions as the Secretary
determines are appropriate to carry out or facilitate the
administration of this subchapter.
``(c) Ranking Applications.--
``(1) Establishment of criteria.--The Secretary shall
establish criteria to evaluate and rank applications for
contracts under this subchapter.
``(2) Emphasis.--In establishing the criteria, the
Secretary shall emphasize support for native grass and
shrubland, grazing operations, and plant and animal
biodiversity.
``(d) Restoration Agreements.--The Secretary shall
prescribe the terms by which grassland that is subject to a
contract under the program shall be restored. The agreement
shall include duties of the land owner and the Secretary,
including the Federal share of restoration payments and
technical assistance.
``(e) Violations.--On the violation of the terms or
conditions of a contract or restoration agreement entered
into under this section--
``(1) the contract shall remain in force; and
``(2) the Secretary may require the owner to refund all or
part of any payments received by the owner under this
subchapter, with interest on the payments as determined
appropriate by the Secretary.
``SEC. 1238B. DUTIES OF SECRETARY.
``(a) In General.--In return for the granting of a contract
by an owner under this subchapter, the Secretary shall make
contract payments and payments of the Federal share of
restoration and provide technical assistance to the owner in
accordance with this section. The Secretary shall base the
amount paid for an easement on the fair market value of the
easement.
``(b) Federal Share of Restoration.--The Secretary shall
make payments to the owner of not more than--
``(1) in the case of virgin (never cultivated) grassland,
90 percent of the costs of carrying out measures and
practices necessary to restore grassland functions and
values; or
``(2) in the case of restored grassland, 75 percent of such
costs.
``(c) Technical Assistance.--A landowner who is receiving a
benefit under this subchapter shall be eligible to receive
technical assistance in accordance with section 1243(d) to
assist the owner or operator in carrying out a contract
entered into under this subchapter.
``(d) Payments to Others.--If an owner who is entitled to a
payment under this subchapter dies, becomes incompetent, is
otherwise unable to receive the payment, or is succeeded by
another person who renders or completes the required
performance, the Secretary shall make the payment, in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary and
without regard to any other provision of law, in such manner
as the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable in light
of all the circumstances.''.
Subtitle D--Organic Farming
SEC. 231. PROGRAM TO ASSIST TRANSITION TO ORGANIC FARMING.
(a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Agriculture
(in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
expand the National Organic Program to include a voluntary
program to assist agricultural producers in making the
transition from conventional to organic farming and to assist
existing organic farmers. Under the program, the Secretary
may make payments to cover all or a portion of--
(1) production and marketing losses;
(2) conservation practices related to organic food
production;
(3) certification costs;
(4) technical assistance by qualified third parties;
(5) educational materials; or
(6) farm-to-consumer market development.
(b) Limitation on Expenditures.--Payments to individual
farm and ranch operators under this section shall not exceed
$10,000 per year, and such payments shall not be made to
individuals operating a conventional farm or ranch in more
than 3 fiscal years.
(c) Organic Certification Reimbursement Program.--The
Secretary shall reimburse producers for the cost of organic
certification. To expedite certification, farmers seeking
certification shall be eligible for a direct reimbursement of
up to $500 by the Secretary of certification costs, so long
as producers present an organic certificate and receipt.
(d) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, there shall be available to the Secretary to
carry out this section $20,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 and
2003, $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $40,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2006,
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, $50,000,000 for fiscal year
2008, and $0 for fiscal years 2009 through 2011.
Subtitle E--Forestry
SEC. 241. URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY.
Section 9(i) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2105(i)) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) Funding.--The Secretary shall use $50,000,000 of the
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this
section for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2011. In
addition, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary not more than $50,000,000 to carry out this section
for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2011. As determined
by the Secretary, socially disadvantaged foresters shall be
eligible for funding under this section.''.
SEC. 242. WATERSHED FORESTRY INITIATIVE.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a program
for the purpose of providing financial assistance to enhance
the quality of municipal water supplies and to encourage the
long-term sustainability of private forestland.
(b) Easements.--The Secretary shall annually use
$75,000,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation to be
matched equally by any non-Federal source for each of the
fiscal years 2002 through 2011 to acquire permanent easements
that promote watershed protection. The Secretary shall
establish a system to fairly compensate landowners for the
value of an easement entered into under this section.
(c) Land-Use Practices.--The Secretary shall annually use
$25,000,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation for each of
the fiscal years 2002 through 2011 to share equally with any
non-Federal source the cost of land management practices on
nonindustrial forestland that protect municipal drinking
water supplies and other conservation purposes. The Secretary
shall consider, among other factors, the extent to which
projects are identified in a regional or watershed
conservation plan. Practices that are eligible for funding
under this section include the following:
(1) Natural forest regeneration.
(2) Prescribed burns.
(3) Native species restoration.
(4) Stream and watershed restoration.
(5) Road retirement.
(6) Riparian restoration.
(7) Other practices that improve water quality and wildlife
habitat, as determined by the Secretary.
(d) Regional and Watershed Planning.--The Secretary shall
establish a program to make grants not exceeding $10,000 to
develop and implement regional and watershed-based
conservation plans to comply with existing laws and meeting
water quality standards. The Secretary shall consider, among
other factors, the extent to which applicants develop
interjurisdictional conservation plans, protect nationally
significant resources, engage the public, and demonstrate
local support. The Secretary shall use not more than
$10,000,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation for each of
the fiscal years 2002 through 2011 to carry out this
subsection.
Subtitle F--Technical Assistance
SEC. 251. CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Section 6 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590f) is amended--
(1) by striking the 1st undesignated paragraph and
inserting the following:
``(a) The Secretary shall make available $200,000,000 each
fiscal year from the Commodity Credit Corporation, and such
additional sums as may be appropriated by the Congress, to
carry out this Act.''; and
(2) by desginating the 2nd undesignated paragraph as
subsection (b).
(b) Section 7 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 590g) is amended by
striking ``and (7)'' and inserting ``(7) any of the purposes
of agricultural conservation programs authorized by Congress,
and (8)''.
[[Page H6298]]
SEC. 252. REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.
Subtitle E of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3841-3843) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before the first unnumbered
paragraph;
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as
subparagraphs (A) through (B);
(3) by moving the newly designated subparagraphs (A)
through (B) three ems to the right;
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) For each of fiscal years 1996 through 2011, the
Secretary shall use the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation for the provision of technical assistance to
allow for full reimbursement of actual costs for delivering
all conservation programs funded through the Commodity Credit
Corporation for which technical assistance is required.''.
SEC. 253. CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY THIRD PARTIES.
Section 1243(d) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3843(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``In the preparation'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--In the preparation''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Establishment of training centers.--To facilitate the
training and certification of Federal and non-Federal
employees and qualified third parties, the Secretary may
establish training centers in the following locations:
``(A) Fresno, California.
``(B) Platteville, Wisconsin.
``(C) Lincoln, Nebraska.
``(D) Ithaca, New York.
``(E) Pullman, Washington.
``(F) Orono, Maine.
``(G) Gainesville, Florida.
``(H) College Park, Maryland.
``(3) Certification of third-party providers.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall, by regulation, establish a system for approving
persons to provide technical assistance pursuant to this
title. In the system, the Secretary shall give priority to a
person who has a memorandum of understanding regarding the
provision of technical assistance in place with the
Secretary.
``(B) Expertise required.--In prescribing such regulations,
the Secretary shall ensure that persons with expertise in the
technical aspects of conservation planning, watershed
planning, environmental engineering, including commercial
entities, qualified nonprofit entities, State or local
governments or agencies, and other Federal agencies, are
eligible to become approved providers of such technical
assistance.
``(C) Qualified nonprofit organizations.--Qualified
nonprofit organizations shall include organizations whose
missions primarily promote the stewardship of working
farmland and ranchland.
``(4) Quality assurance program.--The Secretary shall
establish a program to assess the quality of the technical
assistance provided by third parties.''.
SEC. 254. CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARDS.
The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
(1) revise standards and, when necessary, establish
standards for eligible conservation practices to include
measurable goals for enhancing natural resources, including
innovative practices;
(2) within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
section, revise the National Handbook of Conservation
Practices and field office technical guides; and
(3) not less frequently than once every 5 years, update the
Handbook and technical guides to reflect the best available
science.
Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Conservation Provisions
SEC. 261. CONSERVATION PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND
EVALUATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a grant
program to evaluate the benefits of the conservation programs
under title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 and under
sections 242 and 262 of this Act.
(b) Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants to land grant
colleges and other research institutions whose applications
are highly ranked under subsection (c) to evaluate the
economic and environmental benefits of conservation programs,
and shall use such research to identify and rank measures
needs to improve water quality, fish and wildlife habitat,
and other environmental goals of conservation programs.
(c) Scientific Panels.--The Secretary shall establish a
panel of independent scientific experts to review and rank
the grant applications submitted under subsection (a).
(d) Funding.--The Secretary shall use $10,000,000 from the
Commodity Credit Corporation for each of fiscal years 2002
through 2011 to carry out this section.
SEC. 262. GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM FOR SOIL EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Great Lakes Commission created by
Article IV of the Great Lakes Basin Compact (82 Stat. 415)
and in cooperation other appropriate Federal agencies may
carry out the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control.
(b) Assistance.--In carrying out the Program, the Secretary
shall--
(1) provide project demonstration grants, provide technical
assistance, and carry out information and education programs
to improve water quality in the Great Lakes Basin by reducing
soil erosion and improving sediment control; and
(2) provide a priority for projects and activities that
directly reduce soil erosion or improve sediment control.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2011.
(2) Administrative costs.--
(A) Commission.--The Great Lakes Commission may use not
more than 10 percent of the funds made available for a fiscal
year under paragraph (1) to pay administrative costs incurred
by the Commission in carrying out this section.
(B) Secretary.--None of the funds made available under
paragraph (1) may be used by the Secretary to pay
administrative costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying
out this section.
Subtitle H--Conservation Corridor Program
SEC. 271. CONSERVATION CORRIDOR PROGRAM.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this subtitle is to provide
for the establishment of a program that recognizes the
leveraged benefit of an ecosystem-based application of the
Department of Agriculture conservation programs, addresses
the increasing and extraordinary threats to agriculture in
many areas of the United States, and recognizes the
importance of local and regional involvement in the
protection of economically and ecologically important
farmlands.
(b) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture (in this
subtitle referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall establish a
Conservation Corridor Program through which States, local
governments, tribes, and combinations of States may submit,
and the Secretary may approve, plans to integrate agriculture
and forestry conservation programs of the United States
Department of Agriculture with State, local, tribal, and
private efforts to address farm preservation, water quality,
wildlife, and other conservation needs in critical areas,
watersheds, and corridors in a manner that enhances the
conservation benefits of the individual programs, tailors
programs to State and local needs, and promotes and supports
ecosystem and watershed-based conservation.
(c) Memorandum of Agreement.--On approval of a proposed
plan, the Secretary may enter into a memorandum of agreement
with a State, a combination of States, local governments, or
tribes, that--
(1) guarantees specific program resources for
implementation of the plan;
(2) establishes different or automatic enrollment criteria
than otherwise established by regulation or policy, for
specific levels of enrollments of specific conservation
programs within the region, if doing so will achieve greater
conservation benefits;
(3) establishes different compensation rates to the extent
the parties to the agreement consider justified;
(4) establishes different conservation practice criteria if
doing so will achieve greater conservation benefits;
(5) provides more streamlined and integrated paperwork
requirements; and
(6) otherwise alters any other requirement established by
United States Department of Agriculture policy and regulation
to the extent not inconsistent with the statutory
requirements and purposes of an individual conservation
program.
SEC. 272. CONSERVATION ENHANCEMENT PLAN.
(a) Preparation.--To be eligible to participate in the
program under this subtitle, a State, combination of States,
political subdivision or agency of a State, tribe, or local
government shall submit to the Secretary a plan that proposes
specific criteria and commitment of resources in the
geographic region designated, and describes how the linkage
of Federal, State, and local resources will--
(1) improve the economic viability of agriculture by
protecting contiguous tracts of land;
(2) improve the ecological integrity of the ecosystems or
watersheds within the region by linking land with high
ecological and natural resource value; and
(3) in the case of a multi-State plan, provide a draft
memorandum of agreement among entities in each State.
(b) Submission and Review.--Within 90 days after receipt of
the conservation plan, the Secretary shall review the plan
and approve it for implementation and funding under this
subtitle if the Secretary determines that the plan and
memorandum of agreement meet the criteria specified in
subsection (c).
(c) Criteria for Participation.--The Secretary may approve
a plan only if, as determined by the Secretary, the plan
provides for each of the following:
(1) Actions taken under the conservation plan are voluntary
and require the consent of willing landowners.
(2) Criteria specified in the plan and memorandum of
agreement assure that enrollments in each conservation
program incorporated through the plan are of exceptionally
high conservation value.
(3) The program provides benefits greater than the benefits
that would likely be achieved through individual application
of the federal conservation programs because of such factors
as--
(A) ecosystem- or watershed-based enrollment criteria;
(B) lengthier or permanent conservation commitments;
[[Page H6299]]
(C) integrated treatment of special natural resource
problems, including preservation and enhancement of natural
resource corridors; and
(D) improved economic viability for agriculture.
(4) Staffing and marketing, considering both Federal and
non-Federal resources, are sufficient to assure program
success.
(d) Approval and Implementation.--Within 90 days after
approval of a conservation plan, the Secretary shall begin to
provide funds for the implementation of the plan.
(e) Priority.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary
shall give priority to multi-State or multi-tribal plans.
SEC. 273. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Cost-Sharing.--As a further condition on the approval
of a conservation plan submitted by a non-Federal interest
under section 272, the Secretary shall require the non-
Federal interest to contribute at least 20 percent of the
total cost of the Conservation Corridor Program.
(b) Exception.--The Secretary may reduce the cost-share
requirement in the case of a specific activity under the
Conservation Corridor Program on good cause and demonstration
that the project or activity is likely to achieve
extraordinary natural resource benefits.
(c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall require that non-
Federal interests contributing financial resources for the
Conservation Corridor Program shall implement streamlined
paperwork requirements and other procedures to allow for
integration with the Federal programs for participants in the
program.
(d) Reservation of Funds.--The Secretary shall direct funds
on a priority basis to the Conservation Corridor Program and
to projects in areas identified by the plan.
(e) Administration.--A State may submit multiple plans, but
the Secretary shall assure opportunity for submission by each
State. Acreage committed as part of approved Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Programs shall be considered acreage of
the Conservation Reserve Program committed to a Conservation
Enhancement Program.
Subtitle I--Funding Source and Allocations
SEC. 281. FUNDING FOR CONSERVATION FUNDING.
(a) Reduction in Fixed Decoupled Payments and Counter-
Cyclical Payments.--Notwithstanding sections 104 and 105, the
Secretary of Agriculture (in this subtitle referred to as the
``Secretary'') shall reduce by $1,900,000,000 the total
amount otherwise required to be paid under such sections in
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, in accordance with
this section.
(b) Maximum Total Payments by Type and Fiscal Year.--In
making the reductions required by subsection (a), the
Secretary shall ensure that--
(1) the total amount paid under section 104 does not
exceed--
(A) $3,425,000,000 in fiscal year 2002; or
(B) $4,325,000,000 in any of fiscal years 2003 through
2011; and
(2) the total amount paid under section 105 does not
exceed--
(A) $3,332,000,000 in fiscal year 2003;
(B) $4,494,000,000 in fiscal year 2004;
(C) $4,148,000,000 in fiscal year 2005;
(D) $3,974,000,000 in fiscal year 2006;
(E) $3,701,000,000 in fiscal year 2007;
(F) $3,222,000,000 in fiscal year 2008;
(G) $2,596,000,000 in fiscal year 2009;
(H) $2,057,000,000 in fiscal year 2010; or
(I) $1,675,000,000 in fiscal year 2011.
(c) Limitations to Protect Smaller Farmers, Preserve Trade
Agreements, and Ensure Program and Regional Balance.--In
making the reductions required by subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) accomplish all of the reductions required with respect
to a fiscal year by making pro rata reductions in the amounts
otherwise payable under sections 104 and 105 to the 10
percent (or, if necessary, such greater percentage as the
Secretary may determine) of recipients who would otherwise
receive the greatest total payments under such sections in
the fiscal year; and
(2) to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that--
(A) the resulting payments under such sections pose the
least amount of risk to the United States of violating trade
agreements to reduce subsidies; and
(B) the reductions are made in a manner that achieves
balance among programs and regions.
SEC. 282. ALLOCATION OF CONSERVATION FUNDS BY STATE.
(a) State Allocation.--To the maximum extent practicable in
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, the Secretary,
subject to the rules of the conservation programs
administered by the Secretary, shall ensure that each State
receives at a minimum the State's share of the $1,900,000,000
based on the State's share of the total agricultural market
value of production, with each State receiving not less than
0.52 percent and not more than 7 percent of such amount
annually.
(b) Transition and Unobligated Balances.--If the offices of
the United States Department of Agriculture in each
respective State cannot expend all funds allocated in this
title within 2 consecutive fiscal years for the programs
identified in this title, the funds shall be remitted to the
Secretary for reallocation as the Secretary deems appropriate
among States to address unmet conservation needs through the
programs in this title, except that in no event shall these
unobligated balances be used to fund technical assistance.
(c) Regional Equity.--Section 1230 of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Regional Equity.--In carrying out the ECARP, the
Secretary shall recognize the importance of regional equity,
and the importance of accomplishing many conservation
objectives that can sometimes only be achieved on land of
high value.''.
Subtitle J--Rural Development
SEC. 291. EXPANSION OF STATE MARKETING PROGRAMS.
(a) Federal-State Market Incentive Payments.--Section
204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C.
1623) is amended by striking ``such sums as he may deem
appropriate'' and inserting ``$10,000,000 from the Commodity
Credit Corporation for each of the fiscal years 2002 through
2011''.
(b) Market Development Grants.--Section 203(e)(1) of such
Act (7 U.S.C. 1622(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Secretary shall transfer to State
departments of agriculture and other State marketing offices
at least 10 percent of the funds appropriated for a fiscal
year for this subsection to facilitate the development of
local and regional markets for agricultural products,
including direct farm-to-consumer markets.''.
Amend the table of contents accordingly.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I think by now the thrust of the
Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is well-known. Our amendment
would significantly increase the conservation funding in the bill,
while leaving total farm bill spending essentially unchanged. This
amendment will protect water quality, preserve open space, foster
wildlife populations, and increase opportunities for sportsmen, all
while helping more farmers in more States than the base bill.
That is why the amendment is supported by a wide range of groups,
including Ducks Unlimited, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Izaak
Walton League, groups representing the Nation's water and sewer
agencies, the National League of Cities, and the League of Conservation
Voters. Quite simply, our amendment is good environmental policy and
good agriculture policy.
This amendment will provide increases for the numerous important
conservation programs that do not receive significant increases in the
bill. These programs, like the Wetland Reserve Program and the
Conservation Reserve Program, which help farmers, especially small
farmers, have a long waiting list. As the administration's own recent
report, Taking Stock for a New Century acknowledges, these programs
could and should help many more farmers work the land, care for the
land, and protect water quality.
I represent an agricultural area, and I know from the farmers in my
own congressional district just how vital and successful these programs
can be.
Now, we are going to hear a lot of spurious arguments against this
amendment, even more than usual, because the chairman has refused to
agree to a time limit on debate. But the main argument we are going to
hear is the most ridiculous of all. We are going to hear that this
amendment would destroy the delicate, carefully crafted balance that
holds together the underlying bill.
Let me tell my colleagues bluntly about the way this bill is
balanced. This is the kind of balance they used to have in Latin
America dictatorships where all of the leading families got together
and divided the money equally among themselves to ensure that the rest
of the public was held at bay. They were called ``banana republics.''
Here, I guess, we have a ``cotton republic.'' But the principle is the
same. The balance in this bill is that all of the big commodity groups
got together and divided up the spoils without regard to the needs of
other people or of good public policy.
Now, just like oligarchies, they are threatening anyone who would
dare to disagree: food stamp advocates, dairy farmers advocates, you
name it. There is nothing delicate about the way this bill was put
together. It was an exercise in raw power.
Do not take my word for this. Listen to the Bush administration. The
administration does not support the base bill because, and I quote,
``It misses the opportunity to modernize farm programs through
innovative environmental programs; it encourages overproduction, and
fails to help farmers most in need,'' especially small farmers and
ranchers. This amendment corrects these deficiencies.
Our amendment will help more farmers in more States than the base
bill.
[[Page H6300]]
Our amendment will encourage innovative environmental practices. Our
amendment will keep lands in production. Our amendment will target
assistance to smaller farms who need it the most. Our amendment will
help protect precious water supplies from coast to coast. In fact,
commodity payments will still increase significantly with our
amendment, and 97 percent of American farmers, 97 percent, will receive
the exact same payments they would under the underlying bill.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It represents true
balance. It will help farmers and cities protect land and water,
preserve open space, and keep farms in business. It is fair, it is
equitable, and it deserves our support.
{time} 1330
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), who made reference in his opening comments about the fact
that the Chair would not agree to a time agreement, I might just
mention that we have been working on this bill for 9 months.
This bill was reported from committee in July. It has been out there.
People have had the opportunity to look at our bill. We have only been
able to look at this very lengthy and complex amendment, offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kind) for the last 36 hours.
This amendment has a wide variety of things which we want to make for
certain that Members of Congress have the opportunity to know are in
the bill before we, in fact, do vote on it. We will have an opportunity
to discuss that as the day goes on.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Agriculture is appropriately named. I
think if we look back at what has occurred over the past 4 years,
recognizing that we have had virtually record-setting low prices for
every year for commodities across this country, and why the Congress
very generously provided an additional $30 billion was a recognition
that under a program that has not had an adequate safety net, the
American agricultural economy potentially is in peril.
So we set out 2 years ago to begin to look at what we could do to
keep the good parts of the current farm bill and to make changes in the
areas that, in fact, needed changes. We recognize that we cannot be
regional in our approach. We have to look at the Nation as a whole. We
have to look at all aspects of legislation, of programs which come
under our jurisdiction, from food stamps to research to export programs
to commodity programs to conservation to rural development, to all of
those things that, in fact, fall under our jurisdiction.
In almost any other climate, the areas that we have changed in terms
of conservation would have been considered at least generous. For
example, in the current program versus the new program, here are the
comparisons of some of the numbers.
In conservation reserve, we have moved from 36.4 million acres, a
$1.5 billion increase, to 39.2 million acres. In wetland reserves, we
have gone from 1 million acres to 1.5 million acres, with a $1.7
billion increase. In the environmental quality incentives program, we
have gone from $1 billion to $12 billion. In water conservation
programs, there were no programs, and we have gone to $555 million. In
wildlife habitat incentives programs, we have gone from $62 million to
$385 million. In farmland protection programs, we have gone from $52
million to $500 million. There was no grassland reserve program. We
have gone to a program that will provide 2 million acres to be able to
come into contracts and easements.
But the concern that I have about this amendment, let there be no
question about it, from the approach that we are trying to take to deal
with American agriculture, this amendment, if passed, would totally
devastate the bill.
The reason I say that is because, as we have traveled for the last 2
years over this country and in every region of the country, and as we
have had many hearings in our committee over the past several months,
the one thing which stood out in all of the recommendations that the
people who were suffering the most under the current program, was the
need for a countercyclical program. It is the countercyclical program
that is being attacked in this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Combest was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, a countercyclical program works in such a
way that if prices are low, there is a safety net which is built into
the program. I think, to my budget-conscious colleagues, of which I am
one, this is much more of an honest way to deal with this problem than
ad hoc disaster bill after disaster bill after disaster bill after
disaster bill.
It also gives an opportunity for farmers to plan much better, because
they know there is a program in place. If prices are high or if prices
are good, a countercyclical program does not kick in.
So I would say to my friends who look at this from a spending
standpoint, under our program, if we achieve what we are hoping for,
and that is higher commodity prices, we will spend substantially less,
substantially less than we would by the authors of this amendment, if
it passed, because this spending will be there, regardless of what
happens to crops.
If prices next year or the next year or the next year are extremely
low, do we not think that we are going to come back to the Congress,
because there is no mechanism to help in those low-price situations,
and ask for billions upon billions of dollars?
Another thing, this amendment also is very unfair, Mr. Chairman, and
I think it is important to point out a couple of things that sound
pretty good on the surface, but when we begin to look under a little
bit, we begin to realize that this is a little inequitable.
It is great to name the people who get payments. We are only taking
from the top 5 or 10, percent, or whatever. Let me just mention, for
one thing, that it is sort of like one robs money where the bank is;
the reason some people get more money is because they produce more.
They are more at risk. They are the ones who provide the food and fiber
for this country. They are not hobby farmers, they make their living
farming. They are heavily at risk every year with weather and with
pricing conditions over which they have no control, and with huge
increases in the price of production.
Let us talk about how inequitable this is. If we take and separate
this across the top 10 percent of those, and that sounds good, only the
top 10 percent, if we are on an average corn farm of 409 acres, which
is not a big farm, that would receive, on an average yield, $12,500 in
a fixed decoupled payments, that farmer would be cut back to $4,250,
whereas his neighbor on a 392-acre, who would fall just below the
cutoff point, would get $12,500. That seems to me to be a terribly
inequitable situation.
If there is a countercyclical program, and the only commodity in the
country is corn that has a low price, then all of the other producers
in the country do not share in this. All of the money comes off of the
top producers of the people who produce corn.
So just by capping, you are hurting the people who actually need the
help the most. The people who have good crops, the people who have good
prices are not going to be affected because that is the design of our
program. They are not going to get that payment, anyway. But the person
who actually would need it, because the prices are so low, is going to
be the one that is damaged the most. So it seems to me to be extremely
inequitable.
I understand, it is much easier for people to come up and try to
create divisions among regions of the country when they do not have to
represent the country as a whole. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) and I went into this whole discussion and debate, for the
last 2 years on farm policy, recognizing that we have to look at
agriculture as a whole. We have to represent this entire country. We
have to look at it as to what we can do to maintain a balance in which
everybody feels that they are being treated equitably.
Yes, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman
[[Page H6301]]
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) have a group of people for their amendment,
but I did not notice that the people who farmed for a living are the
people who are for their amendment. If we look at people who are in
support of the House bill as passed by the committee, we will find it
is the American farmer. It is the person out there providing the food
and fiber for the people in this country, and it is the one group that
has been hurt more economically in the last 4 years of any economic
group in the country.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am one of the named sponsors of this
amendment today. I am also a proud member of the Committee on
Agriculture.
Just to set the record straight, the amendment that we are offering
today is not something that is new. In fact, it is based on legislation
that I, along with 56 other Members of this body, introduced last June,
the Working Lands Stewardship Act. It was an amendment that we had
discussed during the markup of this farm bill in committee at the end
of July, with the hopes of being able to discuss with the leadership
further about working out some arrangement in regard to what we would
like to accomplish.
So with all due respect to the chairman, to claim that this is new or
something just thrown upon them in the last 36 hours is not accurate.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman and the ranking member and the
other members on the committee and the staff for the hard work that
they have done in this farm bill. It is not an easy task to try to
craft farm policy to help all our family farmers throughout the
country. We can stipulate today that all of us have the intent to try
to help our family farmers and the producers in this country under very
difficult and challenging times.
I represent a district in Wisconsin. The dairy industry is still the
number one industry in the State of Wisconsin. In my congressional
district in western Wisconsin, I have close to 10,500 family farms
alone who are producing dairy, but every one of them is also producing
commodity crops. So the claim that those of us offering this amendment
are not working in the interests of family farmers is not fair or
accurate.
Today we have a chance to fundamentally reform agriculture policy so
all farmers in all regions of the country will benefit under the next
farm bill. The amendment we have today takes a little bit of the
increase in subsidy payments that will go to the largest commodity
producers in the country and will instead move those resources into
voluntary incentive-based land and water conservation programs.
As the Bush administration made clear in their statement on farm
policy released just yesterday, even they cannot support the committee
bill because, and I quote, ``. . . it misses the opportunity to
modernize the Nation's farm programs through market-oriented tools,
innovative environmental programs, including extending benefits to
working lands, and aid programs that are consistent with our trade
agenda.''
Our amendment accomplishes all these objectives by relying on
flexible and innovative conservation programs that all farmers in all
regions of the country can participate in, and it is entirely compliant
with our WTO and trade agreement responsibilities.
These objectives are far from radical, as some of our opponents
claim. In fact, they are entirely consistent with where the Bush
administration's principles and farm policy lie, and it is consistent
with the work currently being done in the United States Senate.
This is what the Bush administration had to say in their statement of
policy released yesterday in regard to the committee bill:
``Some of our Nation's producers are in serious financial straits,
especially smaller farmers and ranchers. Rather than address these
unmet needs, H.R. 2646 will continue to direct the greatest share of
resources to those least in need of government assistance. Nearly half
of all recent government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of
farms, usually very large producers, while more than half of all U.S.
farmers share in only 13 percent of the payments. H.R. 2646 would only
increase this disparity.''
So Members do not have to take our word for it on the floor, or from
others who support the amendment, they merely need to just look at the
Bush administration's only statement of policy on the farm bill to
understand where they lie in regard to the committee work.
Our amendment provides economic assistance to all farmers who want to
meet their environmental challenges. Unfortunately, today, most
farmers, ranchers, and foresters are rejected when they apply for
conservation payments. Seventy percent of farmers and ranchers seeking
Federal funds to improve water quality are annually rejected due to the
inadequacy of funding. More than 3,000 farmers offering to restore more
than one-half million acres of wetlands are currently being rejected
due to the inadequacy of funding. Nine out of ten farmers and ranchers
offering to preserve their farms and preserve open space against sprawl
by selling their developmental rights are currently being rejected
because of the inadequacy of funding. Three thousand farmers and
ranchers offering to create wildlife habitat on their farms and ranches
are currently being rejected because of the inadequacy of funding.
{time} 1345
Three out of every four farmers and ranchers seeking basic technical
assistance for their conservation plans on their own land are currently
being rejected due to the inadequacy of funding. Unfortunately, just
about all of these stewards will continue to be rejected under H.R.
2646 being offered today.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some of the specific
misinformation spread about this amendment.
Supporters of H.R. 2646 claim that the passage of our amendment will
cause irreparable harm to the agricultural economy and to small
farmers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kind was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, in fact, under our amendment, all farmers,
including commodity crop farmers, will still receive substantial
increases in Federal farm funding. Specifically, our amendment would
leave intact a doubling of subsidy payments to commodity producers from
what they received under the 1996 farm bill.
How do we pay for our amendment? We find offsets from the largest,
the biggest of the big, commodity producers, the 10 percent. In fact,
this pie chart shows the universe of farmers in the country today.
Seventy percent of our farmers do not produce the commodity crops or
receive the subsidy payments that would be affected under our
amendment. With the remaining 30 percent of those commodity producers,
90 percent of them are held harmless; and, therefore, the offsets would
only come from 3 percent of the farmers or producers in this country.
Hardly a revolutionary sea change.
Of those 3 percent, they would still be receiving a doubling of the
subsidy payments that they are currently receiving under the former
farm bill passed in 1996. Hardly a radical change in policy proposal.
What we are advocating in our amendment is simple fairness, simple
equity, to recognize that there is a vast universe of farmers and
producers in many regions throughout the country that are currently
excluded under current farm bills and would continue to be excluded
under the new farm bill.
That is why we feel the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is
fair. It is time for a fundamental change in farm policy. I would
encourage our colleagues to support us in this amendment.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by my friends and
colleagues, the gentlemen from New York and Wisconsin (Mr. Boehlert,
Mr. Kind).
We do need strong conservation efforts on the farm. The bill itself
increases the baseline figures for conservation efforts by almost 80
percent
[[Page H6302]]
over the previous bill. The bill already encourages conservation by
providing more cost-share assistance and conservation program funding.
I had a meeting with representatives of Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants
Forever and other conservation groups in Iowa, and they liked this
conservation funding that is in this basic bill. A farm bill must also
protect the Nation's food production and maintain stability on our
farms and in our rural communities. Passage of the Kind amendment would
hinder those efforts.
Over the first 3 years of legislation, if the Kind amendment passed,
Iowa farmers would lose over $800 million in support. That, Mr.
Chairman, would not be kind to Iowa farm families or the small towns
and merchants that depend on their business.
In these troubled economic times, that could precipitate a rural farm
crisis like something we saw in the 1980's in Iowa. Over the past
several years, the farm economy has been stabilized by support of
Congress through supplemental programs. In a time of economic
uncertainty in our Nation, the last thing we need to do is to increase
that uncertainty in our farm community.
Mr. Chairman, this spring I called for Congress to pass a farm bill
this year because our rural communities and farmers need a farm bill
now. The tragic events of last month have not changed that. We should
move forward this year with a farm bill, and we should move forward
with a commodity title that is not reduced by $1.9 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment and passage of the
underlying bill.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend and congratulate the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas) and all the
members of the committee for the hard work they have done on this
legislation over the past 2 years. I would like to thank the chairman
for holding a hearing in my district while we were writing this
legislation at Cookstown University.
Finally, as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee of Conservation,
Credit, Rural Development and Research, I would like to thank the
committee and particularly the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas) for
their significant increase in funding and investment in conservation.
By saying that, Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of the words of our
former great Speaker when he said, ``All politics is local.''
Mr. Chairman, not only all politics is local, but all public policy
is local. I want the leaders of my committee to know that I take no
pleasure in opposing them on this amendment. But at the end of the day,
every Member in this body must look at this legislation and see how it
effects their State and how it effects their district.
When I look at this legislation, even with its increased investment
in conservation, the funding distribution is just not fair to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where agriculture is still the number one
industry. I believe it is the number one industry in New York or the
Northeastern part of the country.
I listen very closely to my mentor and leader, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) over the last few years, and it is true that as a
result of the 1996 farm bill that some of the inequities that
Pennsylvania faced and the Northeast faced was brought on by ourselves,
by our own producers' unwillingness to participate in traditional
programs because we do not grow farm commodities.
So I went and worked very closely with the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, with their Department of Agriculture. I said, What can we
do? What can we bring to this floor to try to have a better
distribution of Federal investment in agriculture?
The message was heard loud and clear that we need to have more with
conservation. Even with the increase of 75 or 80 percent that the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas) worked so hard for, the
distribution still is not fair. If we can get more money into the
conservation title, it will give the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania more
options to take up the backlog that they have at EQIP or Farmland
Protect or CRP or any of the other programs that we have not been able
to utilize significantly.
I know this is coming down to a regional vote. I want to commend the
leaders for bringing this legislation to the floor, but we all need to
look at this. I urge all the Members from the Northeast and from the
mid-Atlantic States to look closely at this legislation and examine
what it does to each Member's district. I believe we can do better.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation,
Credit, Rural Development and Research in the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think we need to step back and look at
the underlying bill that this amendment proposes to change, a bill that
makes a dramatic commitment to conservation in this country: 16 billion
new dollars over a 10-year period, bringing conservation spending in
the agricultural bill to $37 billion over the life of the bill; a $1
billion increase in the EQIP program; increasing the CRP program, the
conservation reserve program, to 39 million acres; a million and a half
new acres to be enrolled in WRP; $500 million over the life of the bill
to go to eradicate and determine and make things happen when it comes
to farm land protection; wildlife habitat incentive programs, an
additional 25 million a year, ramping up to 50 million a year; a two
million acre grasslands reserve program from scratch. It is a major
commitment that this committee made.
Now, why do I rise to oppose the Boehlert-Kind amendment? Why do I
think that the Boehlert-Kind amendment will add more strings and more
restrictions to conservation programs for farmers and ranchers out
there? Let us look for a moment at EQIP.
EQIP, the program that is voluntary, that farmers and ranchers use
when they think the programs will help them in their conservation
efforts and meet their environmental challenges. We had hearings across
this topic, hearing from 23 different groups, and 4 basic topics came
back from producers in EQIP: Provide more money; reform the priority
area system; provide more flexibility; make the EQIP process fair for
all producers.
How did we respond in H.R. 2646? We increased EQIP spending from $200
million a year to $1.285 billion a year. Twelve billion over 10 years.
The amendment drops that back to 10 billion, a reduction.
Also in the amendment, they spend money on programs that were never
requested by producers. The water quality incentives program that gives
drinking water utilities, not producers, control over the program.
Furthermore, this program adds monitoring and compliance requirements
to the EQIP program and then charges the producer for those costs. Why
would producers want more regulatory guidelines? Why would producers
want to spend money on programs they never asked for or endorsed? Who
controls the information collected by these utilities? Not us, and
there is certainly no guarantee of confidentiality in this amendment.
The second biggest producer problem with EQIP is that USDA sets up
these priority districts with 65 percent of the EQIP funds going to the
prioritized areas. What did that cause? Well, that led producers across
the country to find that if they were in the wrong county or on the
wrong side of the county line, if they were on the wrong side of the
river, they were denied funding simply because they were outside of the
priority area. H.R. 2646 makes the Secretary consider EQIP contracts on
their own merit and value. This amendment retains the current law that
forces USDA to set up priority areas that pit producer against
producer.
What was one of the other things that producers asked for? They
repeatedly stated they wanted more flexibility. This amendment takes
away flexibility. It forces the Secretary to commit at least 40 percent
of the funds to four particular areas. In other words, 40 percent of
the money is tied up from the very get-go, and if the producers do not
request those programs as specified, then the money is wasted. The
money is lost. It is not available to the rest of EQIP.
[[Page H6303]]
What else did producers make clear? They made it clear that they
wanted an EQIP program for all producers. H.R. 2646 changed the EQIP
program to make the program fair to all producers. It allows contracts
to vary from 1 year to 10 in length instead of the current 5- to 10-
year contracts. This allows small producers who want to do shorter
contracts to use the EQIP program.
H.R. 2646 allows small producers to get paid in the same year they
sign the contract. Currently they have to wait a year following the
contract to receive their cost share money. H.R. 2646 makes the
contract be considered by USDA on its own merit and value. What a
concept, judging each contract on its own merit, and H.R. 2646 caps the
money that can be spent per year per contract so that money is
available to all producers.
The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is biased toward
certain producers.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Lucas) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma was allowed to proceed
for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, it ensures that small and
socially-disadvantaged farmers are awarded a contract. It sounds
meritorious on its surface, but does this mean that they are the cause
of pollution or want a contract any worse than other producers? Of
course not. Contracts should be considered on their own merit and
value.
Further, this amendment retains the current law that allows the
largest producers to outbid small- to medium-sized farmers. I urge my
colleagues to vote for their producers. Vote for this environmentally
friendly underlying base bill H.R. 2646 and oppose this amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I rise to oppose this amendment. As a leader of the Congressional
Sportsmen Caucus who spent a number of months working with a task force
that we set up to look specifically at the conservation part of the
farm bill, and also spending the last couple of years looking at these
programs, we have been working with all interested parties to improve
Federal programs that promote soil and water conservation, wildlife
habitat, water quality and farmland preservation.
I oppose this current amendment, not because of its intent, but
because the amendment really goes too far in some ways at the wrong
time. I recognize the hard work and good intentions of my friend the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and others, and
I even support several of the programs and features that they have in
this amendment, but it is simply not possible, and this is the
conclusion that we came to, to support this entire package with what it
costs and do the kinds of things that we need to do for farmers to keep
them in business.
It is not time to start new programs that have not been through the
committee process and have not been subjected to hearings and the work
that needs to be done, and it is just not possible to do all of the
good things that they want to do, in our opinion, and some of it,
frankly, I have some concerns about.
{time} 1400
Now, Mr. Chairman, the farm bill, as we know, is an act of careful
balance and compromise; and we have spent a lot of time trying to come
to that. So I ask my colleagues to take a step back and recall the past
farm bill debates. My colleagues may remember past disagreements were
over how much funding to include for conservation programs. The fights
were over whether we are going to keep these important programs from
being completely eliminated in some of these bills, and through the
years we have struggled to keep and improve the programs that we have.
Now, we have been through, I think, the talk about what is in this
bill. There are significant increases for conservation. And in the task
force that looked at this, we came to the conclusion that the best
thing to do with the available money is put it into the existing
programs that have big backlogs. These programs have worked well. They
have done tremendous things, the CRP, WRP. They have brought back ducks
and pheasants and deer to the levels we have never seen in this
country. And with the resources, we just did not feel this was a time
to go in setting up new programs that may or may not work or may or may
not be the right thing to do.
One of the other big problems with the current amendment is the
dramatic cuts it makes in commodity programs that these farmers need.
Now, supporters claim these cuts are on the largest farmers that do not
really represent family farms. I would just like for everybody to
understand that the USDA says that a large farm is one that has more
than $250,000 worth of gross receipts. That is 15 percent of the
farmers in this country, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) is
talking about 10 percent.
Well, those 15 percent of the farmers produce 54 percent of the food,
and they only get 47 percent of the Government payments. On the other
hand, the smaller farmers, the 85 percent that produce 46 percent of
the food, they get 53 percent of the payments. So do not get drug into
this big-versus-little issue. This will hurt everybody, and the
chairman I think did a good job of pointing out that it is not the
right kind of solution given the times we are in.
Now, the National Farmers Union, the Farm Bureau, every major
commodity group, all reality-based conservation groups oppose the deep
cuts this amendment makes. Farmers are on the front lines of
conservation. These groups understand that we cannot have successful
conservation by eliminating the certainty and the safety net that our
farmers need.
Supporters of this amendment may have forgotten that the farm bill is
still a work in process. The House Committee on Agriculture has worked
over 2 years to develop this bill. We act today in a continuum that
includes further negotiations, including a conference committee with
the Senate; and at no time has the bill language been set in stone. We
have been massaging this as we have gone through. In addition to the
large increases in conservation funding provided in the committee
markup, there have been significant improvements since then that have
been made possible with continued negotiations with the committee.
I want to commend the chairman for his willingness and openness to
work with the Sportsmen's Caucus, Waterfowl Task Force, and groups like
Pheasants Forever, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, and the Nature Conservancy. I think it is regretful that some
wildlife groups and the environmental community resisted compromise and
negotiation with the committee by endorsing this amendment only a few
days after there was committee action.
So I urge my colleagues to join me today and oppose this amendment
and support the bill.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words in opposition to this amendment.
I have served on the Committee on Agriculture, and I am proud of my
service there, for 6 years. This is my second farm bill. This is the
fairest farm bill that has been put together during the time that I
have been here and during the last two times that we have put together
farm bills. Dozens of hearings have been held. People have been asked
their opinions all over this country. What should we be doing? What
should farm policy really be?
There are 51 members on the Committee on Agriculture. It is a broad-
based committee. It represents America. It represents the interests of
America. One of the authors of this amendment is a member of that
committee; and I am told that he had the opportunity to trot out this
idea, to offer it in the full committee, but then he realized that it
did not have standing in the committee; that he could not find anybody
to support it. So what did he do? He either withdrew it or decided not
to offer it. So that is why it is not a part of the bill. It is not a
part of the delicate balancing act that there needs to be to put
together a farm bill to serve the country, not one particular region of
the country.
So part of the reason that we should vote against this is because
this was tried in the committee; and the committee, for whatever
reason, did not
[[Page H6304]]
want to vote on it or the gentleman did not have the votes. The
gentleman knows there was a debate, he knows he did not have the
support, so he decided to get some of the other groups, conservation
groups, and bring it to the floor and short-circuit the system that we
all have to live under when we bring a major piece of legislation like
this to the floor.
So that is one fault with it. I will tell my colleagues the other
part. The chairman of the Committee on Science, who is also an author
of this and is part of the process here, knows how difficult it is to
put bills together. He knows that. He is the chairman on the Committee
on Science, and he has done a lot of good work on environmental issues.
But the idea that somehow the gentleman was ignored or this issue was
ignored is nonsense. It is just simply not true. It was an idea that
has been out there. It has been floating around. It was a part of the
discussion in the Committee on Agriculture. And so, as a chairman, I
would think the gentleman would think better of the fact that if it was
brought before the committee, that maybe he would have thought better
than to try to short-circuit what went on.
The best name for this amendment is the ``land grab amendment,''
because this affects the idea that we can take a big chunk out of a
farm bill that was delicately put together and turn it into something
that can be called conservation or preserving the land. I have the
largest CRP program in the country in central Illinois and the 14
counties. I take no back seat to anybody, make no apologies for the
fact that we have a big conservation program. We are doing an awful lot
with conservation, with the Nature Conservancy, with a lot of the
different conservation groups; and we have done well by that. But we
have done it under the programs established by the Congress,
established by the 51 members of the committee who sit on the
committee, who worked very hard to put this together.
This is a very, very bad idea because it short-circuits the process.
It goes around the process. It simply does not make sense to do this to
the chairman, to the ranking member, to the members of the committee,
the 51 members of the committee, who had an opportunity to talk about
this. There is an increase in conservation. We all know that. That has
been well stated here. It is not as if it has been short-circuited. It
certainly has not.
The bottom line is if Members want to save the family farm, if they
really want to do something for small farmers, if they want to help
agriculture, if they really want to send a message to a part of our
economy that has been in a recession while the rest of the economy has
been booming for the last 5 years, because agriculture has been in
recession; and we have passed on this floor $30 billion of additional
payments, so that has been taken care of, but if my colleagues really
want to help farmers, the small family farm, if they want to save the
family farm, if they want to really give opportunity to the small
farmer, they will defeat this amendment which sends the message that it
cannot be a part of the overall bill. It does not fit. It does not
work. It is not a part of what was put together.
This is an opportunity, I think, to really send a message that we
believe in the family farm, we are going to help the family farmer, and
we are going to do all we can to support the family farm. We are not
going to have to pass additional payments year in and year out because
we have put together a farm bill. The chairman and the ranking member
deserve a lot of credit. They traveled the country. They went to many
counties. They went to many States. They listened to people.
This is a good opportunity to say to people we are with you, we are
going to help you, we are going to save the family farm. Defeat the
Kind amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed the comments that have been
just made; and regrettably, they are useful, but only slightly so. This
is a good amendment to a good bill. It is a good amendment that makes a
good bill much better.
The President had some words to say to my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle the other day. The administration noted that nearly half of
the government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of the
farms, while more than half of all the other farmers have received only
13 percent.
Now, where are the cuts that are made here, about which my colleagues
on the Committee on Agriculture complain so much in the amendment? They
are to the commodity section. But interesting to note is that the
commodity section is going to pay more than it has in the past to the
American farmer. So the American farmer is going to do fine under this.
LDP payments are increased. But where is the big increase? The big
increase in funding under this legislation is to conservation. And it
is going in a way which permits all farmers, especially the smaller
farmers, to begin to draw an adequate opportunity to participate in
funding for conservation purposes.
It is noteworthy, I would tell my colleagues, that three out of four
farmers have been turned away from the conservation programs because of
a lack of money. Three out of four. This is going to give the little
farmer a chance to participate in conservation, where there is an
enormous benefit. The only conservation programs that have really
received significant increases under the bill are those which have
benefited the big farmers, not the little farmers. This switches it.
This takes care of the hunters, the conservationists, the people who
are concerned about wise handling of our lands and public resources. It
sees to it the money goes into the hands of the little farmer, who will
begin to spend money, which he does not now have for conservation, for
the protection of fish and wildlife, for keeping our waters clean and
safe.
It is not going to benefit some of the enormous hog farmers, or the
farmers who, and I am not sure we can really call them farmers, but
people who put enormous numbers of hogs or cattle in feedlots and stuff
them, producing unbelievable amounts of manure. We can use other laws
to address those problems by making them clean up as polluters, if they
in fact are doing that.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind)
increases the Wetland Reserve Program, it increases the Farm Protection
Program, it increases the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, it
increases funds for conservation of private grazing lands, it increases
the Grassland Reserve Program, and conservation technical assistance.
Those are things which we need to do in the interest of all. The
Conservation Reserve Program, a program which will assist transition
from conventional to organic farming programs, those are things which
are important.
I have listened to some of my colleagues tell me how the real
conservation organizations favor the bill. Perhaps. But the real
conservation organizations favor the amendment. The International
Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners, Sierra Club,
the National Wildlife Federation. Every meaningful conservation
organization. Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Unlimited. Those organizations
support the amendment.
What we are seeking here is an opportunity to benefit all of the
farmers; to increase money going to the real farmer, to the family
farmer, and to the little farmer to enable them to spend money for
conservation, for programs which benefit everybody and which
responsible farmers like.
I met with some farmers who came in to see me the other day. They
were complaining about my support of this amendment. I said, it is
going to leave you with more money for your commodities programs. It is
going to leave you with much more money and access to conservation
programs that are good. What are your complaints? They really had no
complaints.
If this is explained properly to the farmers, they will understand
and they will see that what we are doing is good. I urge the adoption
of the amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
It has been interesting listening to this debate, and again we are
wandering a bit far afield. I want to clarify
[[Page H6305]]
one thing for the benefit of all Members.
{time} 1415
Mr. Chairman, Pheasants Forever supports the base bill as it is
written. I want to come back to two very important facts that Members
seem to be getting away from.
Fact number one, this is a farm bill. Did everybody hear that? This
is a farm bill. This is not an environmental bill, and Members need to
think about that.
Fact number two, this bill increases conservation programs by 78
percent. I understand that may not be enough for some people, but that
is a huge increase. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) just
talked about farmers who were turned away on some of the conservation
programs. He was evidently talking about the EQIP program. We increased
that program under this bill from about $200 million to $1.2 billion.
That is a huge increase.
But what this amendment is about is redefining what a ``real farmer''
is. We just heard that expression. A real farmer is somebody who farms
full time. When I hear these arguments, even coming from some of the
folks in the administration who have never seen a real farm, they do
not seem to understand that out in places where we really farm, farmers
do not farm 20 or 30 acres any more. To be a real farmer, farmers have
to farm 400, 600, 800 acres, or more.
According to the research that we have from FAPRI, which is an
independent, nonpartisan farm consulting group, they said that this
amendment will cut payments to farmers who grow more than 409 acres in
Minnesota, the payments they could receive, by two-thirds. That is
devastating. Two-thirds. Somebody who is growing 409 acres of corn in
Minnesota is not a big farmer. That is not a corporate farmer.
Incidently, in the State of Minnesota, and in most States now, we
have outlawed corporate farming. There are no corporate farms. The only
corporate farms we have are family-owned corporations where a brother,
a sister, two brothers, a family has created a corporation.
This is bad business. We have to talk about that average family farm.
It is going to affect them. One of the things that we have tried to do
in this bill, and I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member
because I think they have come together and realized one of the
weaknesses we had in farm policy is we did not have a countercyclical
program. We gave people too much money when prices were good; and then
we had to come back with these supplemental programs when prices were
bad.
Mr. Chairman, we want predictability not only for that average
farmer, we want predictability for the Federal budget. This is a good
bill as written. We cannot afford to strip away $1.9 billion every year
from that average family farmer, to take away that support in the
countercyclical payments, and put it into additional conservation
programs. Seventy-eight percent is more than enough. This is a farm
bill, not an environmental bill. Defeat the Kind amendment. Pass the
bill as written.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, in its current form, the farm bill before us
shortchanges conservation programs that serve farms and ranches of all
sizes all over the country while increasing subsidies for large, often
corporate operations that are producing commodity crops in specific
parts of the country.
Many farmers and ranchers want to be good stewards of the land, to
restore lost wetlands, grasslands, and implement a variety of other
practices to protect wildlife habitat. There is a long list of farmers
eager to participate in conservation programs. Currently, 67 percent of
the payments go to only 10 percent of the farmers, excluding most of
our Nation's farms.
The Boehlert-Kind amendment makes payments available to more farmers
in more regions of the country by funding conservation programs from
which all farmers can benefit because they are not based primarily on
the level of production of a narrow group of crops. The Boehlert-Kind
amendment shifts only about 2.5 percent of the overall dollar
authorization in this legislation away from the largest corporate
producers and increases the funding for land conservation programs in
every single State in the country.
Furthermore, President Bush does not support the committee's bill in
its current form. The statement of administration policy states that
the farm bill, ``Misses an opportunity to modernize the Nation's farm
program through innovative environmental programs, including extending
benefits to working lands.''
The Bush administration also criticizes the bill for encouraging
overproduction when prices are low and for failing to help the
agricultural producers most in need, especially smaller farms and
ranches.
Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to address these flaws by voting
in support of the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment. This
amendment will aid small and medium-sized agricultural producers while
expanding conservation programs. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on
the amendment.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments about statements by some of the
previous speakers. First of all, I want to tell the Nation that we are
here concerned and continue to work on the problems that occurred in
New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. We are working to make America
safer, more secure, and more economically viable, even though we are
strongly debating differences of opinion in the agriculture bill.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have done a pretty
good job on this agriculture bill because they have funneled dollars
where they needed to go. My disagreement is the equitable distribution
of those dollars and the number of dollars. Not in the Committee on
Agriculture, but I worked with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
some years ago on nutrient management problems. In my area it was
poultry, and in his area it was dairy. There are many of us not on the
Committee on Agriculture that live in agricultural communities. I am
the first generation of my family not born on the farm, and yet I have
an intimate relationship with agriculture.
I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for his increase in
conservation dollars, and I trust his judgment because he is a good and
fine gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, the issue here with me is the perspective on the
equitable, my word, equitable, distribution of dollars, throughout the
Nation toward those farms with a sense of urgency that are in the most
need over the next few years. They are out there.
This amendment goes a long way towards dealing with agriculture that
is intimately related with environmental issues. Agriculture deals with
soil, one of the most complex things on Earth.
As a matter of fact, when one thinks about milk, think about buying a
carton of milk. Does one think about going to the store and pulling it
off the shelf; or do my colleagues think about the sun shining on
grass, and then the whole natural process that goes from there to
producing milk. Agriculture is intimately tied in with environmental
issues, with the mechanics of natural processes.
So the issue here is how do we keep our rural areas economically
viable? How do we keep our rural areas rural? Well, we do that by
creating a situation where agriculture can be unique and profitable.
And how does agriculture remain unique and profitable? It remains
unique and profitable if those farmers can not only produce the corn,
the wheat, the poultry, the hogs, the milk, et cetera, et cetera, but
close to where they produce it, they can process it. They can package
it. They can market it within a particular region. It is value added.
How else do we keep this rural area viable? We keep it
environmentally sound. The conservation in this amendment goes a long
way into making those rural areas environmentally pristine. The water
quality is going to improve. The forest habitat is going to
[[Page H6306]]
improve. The wildlife habitat is going to improve.
As a matter of fact, contained in this amendment is a unique
perspective on the conservation programs. Up to this point the
conservation programs were applied to one farm at a time. What we do in
this amendment is to help create a regional approach so many farmers
can get together and submit these plans to USDA, and then get those
dollars for a regional approach. It does not have to be just one State,
it could be in a multistate region.
In my area of Delmarva, we have Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. We
are working on what we call Chesapeake fields, to keep agriculture
viable, profitable, and environmentally sound, and create a
conservation corridor from Virginia to Pennsylvania for wildlife.
There has also been some discussion that I have heard here today and
I have heard in the last few days about hobby farmers. Well, just
because a farmer has a small farm and just because a farmer's wife has
to work in the bank or is a schoolteacher or drives a bus does not mean
that farmer is not putting his heart and soul and grit and life into
that dirt to make that farm profitable because that farm was received
from the farmer's great, great grandparents 200 years ago; or maybe the
farmer is a recent farmer.
Mr. Chairman, this is not about small farmers getting a subsidy
because they are not competitive with the big farmers, and I do not
want to go where some of us have gone pitting the big farmers against
the small farmers. This is about preserving the infrastructure of
agriculture for itself, for water quality, for wildlife habitat, but
mostly to preserve the family farm because that is American.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we pass
the Boehlert - Kind - Gilchrest - Dingell amendment. I think this is
the most important amendment because I think this is really an
amendment about the compact that will be forged in this country, about
the future of farming in this country.
We used to have a colleague in this Congress from Minnesota, and he
used to get up and talk about the farm bill. He was on the Committee on
Agriculture, and he would say we have doubled the productivity of the
American farmer every 10 years. And he would say the way we did it was
we put half of them out of work during that 10-year period so there are
only half as many left.
We have had farm bill after farm bill after farm bill, and year after
year what we hear about is the distress in farm country and the plight
of the family farmer, about the people moving to the cities, and the
people who cannot leave their farms to their children and cannot
produce and make a living, and somebody else in the family has to take
a job.
My colleague stood up earlier and said this is not an environmental
bill, this is a farm bill. Well, America has gotten a lot smaller, a
lot more crowded. Farmers cannot farm in isolation any longer.
The problems in the Chesapeake Bay, the problems in the San Francisco
Bay, the problems in the Gulf of Mexico, the problems in Santa Monica
Bay and Puget Sound, many of them start hundreds of miles away on
farmlands where farmers do not have the capability, the resources, the
wherewithal to protect the runoffs, to protect the offsite impacts of
their work.
This committee has struggled with that, and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have
addressed that; but this amendment has made the determination it has
been insufficient.
The problems in San Francisco Bay are created by huge dairies in the
Central Valley, huge cattle feeding yards in the Central Valley. For
years, the runoff ran into the creek; from the creek it ran into the
San Joaquin River; from the San Joaquin River it went to the Sacramento
River; from the Sacramento River it went into the San Pablo Bay; and
from the San Pablo Bay it went into the San Francisco Bay.
Farmers cannot farm in isolation any longer. The connections to our
commercial fishery on the Pacific Coast, the problems that we have,
many of them start on the farmlands many, many miles away.
{time} 1430
The protection of habitat, the protection of riparian areas,
absolutely crucial to one of the great delta regions in the world, is
about the effort and giving the resources and the ability of small
farmers and ranchers and others to farm their land in an
environmentally sound way and continue to make a living doing so. This
is not a great contest between the environmentalists and the farmers.
In fact, if there had not been so much resistance to this amendment, I
suspect it could have been incorporated, and for many of the things
that people are criticizing it about, they are criticizing because it
was not worked out in the committee.
But the fact of the matter is we need this amendment. We need this
amendment. After the next reapportionment, there will be fewer people
representing rural America. We need a compact that brings America
together around farming. There is no shortage of production in the
world. We know that soybeans are being produced at much lower prices
and the cost of production in Brazil is threatening our industry in
this country. The question is under what arrangements and what
contracts and what agreements will we make sure that that production
takes place in America?
And so you have to deal with the externalities, just as Dupont has to
deal with the externalities of their business in their chemical plant
or Chevron in their refineries or any other business has to deal with
the externalities.
We have become a very crowded country on the coast, if you will, for
the most part. And the people down in the dead zone, in the Gulf of
Mexico are very interested in the farming practices up north. That is
what this amendment is about. That is why it has such overwhelming and
such an incredible diverse support of interest groups supporting it. It
is about the stewardship in this millennium of America's lands, of
America's crops, America's habitat, America's wildlife, America's
fisheries and America's family farmers. It is about sharing the effort
that we make in this country to keep family farms on the farm.
We have not had a great deal of success. We have not had a great deal
of success. We have had a lot of farm bills, but we have not had a lot
of success. So maybe we ought to just broaden our thinking and
understand that this is one more tool.
Many people fought the alternative energy and wind energy. Now we are
seeing the farmers are turning to that because it can lend income to
their land. With maybe less than the use of 5, 6 percent of their land,
they can develop substantial resources and they can stay on the land
and they can continue to farm. I thought that was our interest. I
thought that was our interest, was keeping families on the farms. It is
an important part of our society.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Those of us from the urban and the
suburban areas ought to understand the nature of doing that. I think it
is an important decision for a society like ours to make, the
commitment of keeping families on the farm. But apparently we have not
been able to do it as we have just shoveled the subsidies to the
largest of the farmers or the largest of the commodity brokers.
Something has gone wrong in this policy. This is a chance to rework it
and see if there is a way to get other resources to those family farms.
You already made the decision, you would not make this in any part of
the economy, that half of the income is coming from the government.
So the question is what is the benefit for the other half of America?
We appreciate the crops and the foods. We all know the fact that we pay
less than almost any other country in the world. But I think this is
really about the future compact. I think this is about the
[[Page H6307]]
future of farming. I think this is about the sustainability of that
farming, and I think it is about forging a political alliance between
urban, suburban and rural communities, about the importance of making
sure that we maintain the family farmer on the family farm.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Boehlert-Kind
amendment. This amendment would improve the way the Federal Government
helps farmers and the way we conserve valuable American farmland.
At issue today is whether we are going to continue a farm program
that favors certain agricultural users over others or whether we will
spread that significant Federal farm subsidies more equitably
throughout the farming community.
The Boehlert-Kind amendment will benefit more farmers by shifting
nearly $2 billion a year in traditional Federal commodity crop
subsidies to conservation programs that benefit farmers and the
environment.
We all recognize that the farm bill before us today, like the farm
program that it seeks to change, significantly rewards the producers of
commodity corps--corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, rice, barley
and oats--to the exclusion of non-commodity crop producers.
That hurts a lot of farmers, and a lot of states. Take California,
for example.
While California generates one-eighth of the country's agricultural
production, it gets very little Federal agricultural assistance--
primarily because we grow specialty crops and not commodity crops.
California farmers receive just 2 cents in subsidies on every dollar
of production. Meanwhile, farmers in the major commodity producing
states receive at least 17 cents in subsidies on the dollar for their
agricultural production.
The status quo is not equitable and needs to be changed.
This serious inequity must be addressed. But it is not the only
reason to vote for the Boehlert-Kind amendment.
Voting for this amendment is also a vote to protect America's
precious open spaces and environment.
I applaud Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for
recognizing the importance of conservation programs and increasing
funding levels for these programs.
Unfortunately, I strongly believe that conservation and environmental
programs need funding over and above what the Agriculture Committee has
approved. The Boehlert-Kind amendment increases the overall level for
conservation funding while better defining the conservation programs.
For example, the Boehlert-Kind amendment improves the Committee's
Conservation Reserve Program by preventing the loss of over 30 million
acres of tall grasslands. As many of my friends that hunt know, tall
grasses are needed for ducks, pheasants, and other wildlife to nest and
hide. This important change to the Conservation Reserve Program is why
the National Wildlife Federation and Ducks Unlimited support this
amendment.
The Boehlert-Kind amendment also ensures that lands chosen for
conservation programs are selected because they will actually improve
environmental quality. Unfortunately, the Committee bill weakens the
use of environmental merit for selecting lands in conservation
programs.
The Committee bill provides no new money for technical assistance,
even while promising new technical staff to help the country's largest
animal feedlots. The Boehlert-Kind amendment provides funding for
technical assistance, which is why the California Association of
Resource Conservation Districts support the Kind amendment.
In California, increased funding and reformed environmental programs
will make a big difference to our communities.
The California Farmland Conservancy Program can begin to address the
3,500 acre backlog of land farmers want to enroll in the Farmland
Protection Program.
California water quality will improve by increased funding for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) which helps California
farmers adopt practices to reduce the level of sedimentation, nitrogen
and phosphorous runoff into California waters. Currently, the EQUIP
program has a $35 million backlog.
Food control and wildlife population will improve by increased
funding to the Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Programs,
which faces an $85 million backlog.
In addition to support from the conservation community, the Boehlert-
Kind amendment is also supported by the California Winegrowers, San
Diego and Riverside County, Association of California Water Districts
and California Irrigation Association.
The status quo has to change. Our best chance for reform is with the
amendment my colleagues Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Kind, Mr. Gilchrest, and Mr.
Dingell are offering today.
Support the Boehlert-Kind amendment.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I appreciate the efforts of the gentlemen who have offered the
amendment. A lot of work has gone into this. But I rise to oppose the
amendment for several reasons.
One reason is simply the issue of the Conservation Reserve Program.
We currently have 36.4 million acres allocated to CRP. We are currently
at the present time using only 33.5 million acres of CRP. The amendment
would increase CRP to 45 million acres at the cost of several billion
dollars. Why in the world would we increase CRP to 45 million acres
when we are not even using the 36.4 million acres we now have
allocated?
The amendment would allow anywhere from $2 to $4 billion for
conservation easements. These easements would result in land being put
into conservation practices that can never be taken out again.
Currently, the Federal Government in the United States controls, or
owns, over 30 percent of the land in the Nation. We do not need the
Federal Government controlling more land. I can tell you for sure that
most private landowners do not want this to happen.
Then, thirdly, I had mentioned the fact that the amendment as it is
presented shifts money from those people who are involved in production
agriculture to many individuals, not all, who are part-time farmers,
who are people who own land for recreational purposes, and I do not
think that is the purpose of a farm bill.
Some people have said, well, we are just going to shift money from
the wealthy 10 percent of farmers. In my State, Nebraska, that means
anyone who has 500 acres or more in base crops. The average size of a
farm in Nebraska is 900 acres. So what we are talking about here is
taking money from medium-sized and some small farmers to pay the $19
billion that this bill is going to cost, $1.9 billion a year. Over $500
million will be lost in the State of Nebraska alone.
I would like to explode a myth that I keep hearing floated around
this body, which really begins to bother me, and, that is, that our
farmers are getting wealthy by receiving checks at the expense of the
general public. If that is true, why do we have thousands of people
leaving farming each year? One thousand farmers a year leave my State
of Nebraska. Currently, most of our farmers are telling their children
not to go into farming.
We have no young farmers left in the United States. Forty years of
age is a young farmer. The average age of farmers in my district is 60
years of age. Three-fourths of the farms in our country rely on off-
farm income. That means the farm wife and oftentimes the farmer, too,
is driving 10, 20, 30, 40 miles to work and usually these are $6, $7,
$8 an hour jobs so they can stay on the farm. If that is the case, then
why in the world do we say that we are making people wealthy in farming
at public expense?
Lastly, just let me say this. There are 84 different groups that
support the base bill. Eighty-four groups support the bill. Why is this
that they support it? It is because of the process that we have gone
through. Nearly every one of these groups has appeared before the
Committee on Agriculture and they have been required to write the farm
bill. They know what it takes, they know it is a disciplined procedure,
they know it is very involved and that it is very difficult to do. They
appreciate that process. It has been 2 years in the making. The two
gentlemen who have authored this bill primarily are people who have
spent their entire life in agriculture. They have been on the Committee
on Agriculture through several bills. They know what they are doing.
It is sort of deja vu for me, because I used to be in a business or
in an enterprise where we would spend 90 hours a week preparing for a
contest. Then we would have people come in and say, ``Well, we don't
like the way you did it.'' And we would say, ``Well, what would you
do?'' And they could never give you an answer.
And so we have an administration that does not like it, but they
cannot give us an answer. We have one of our leading financial
newspapers that does not like the bill, but they do not have a bill. We
do not know what the Senate is going to do, and so we better start
[[Page H6308]]
acting now while we have a chance because there is not apt to be very
much money next year for agriculture.
I urge support of the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to make
it crystal clear to all of my colleagues, but especially to the
sponsors of this amendment, all of whom are my good friends and for
whom I have the greatest respect. I want them to know that I fully
support the spirit of their amendment and in the past have supported
similar freestanding bills. It is the substance of this particular
amendment that I object to, and my objection can be distilled to one
word: jobs.
At a time when a different company each day announces massive
layoffs, this amendment in my opinion would ultimately mean more
unemployed people in this country. And, by the way, these are not
people, by and large, who can just switch from company to company. No,
some of these people are some of our Nation's farmers, the people who
actually put the food on our table. In mine and the district of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), 50 percent of all the winter
vegetables in this country are grown in the Glades area that we
represent. These people help to put clothes on our back. I will not
stand on this floor and support an amendment which will put some of the
hardest working people in this country and in my State and district out
of work. I exhort my colleagues to think about this before they cast a
vote on this amendment.
Sometimes we speak from personal experiences here on the floor, and
some people who claim some interest in farms visited their grandmama or
grandpapa at some point during the course of their lifetime on a farm
and do not know very much about it, and some would argue, ``Well, what
do you know?'' Well, I come with the experience as a boy of having been
a migrant laborer. I picked beans, cut chicory and stripped celery in
the district, interestingly enough, that I am now privileged and
honored to represent.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud my colleagues who have moved this amendment.
Like each of them, I am proud of the environmental record I have
accumulated in 9 years in this House of Representatives. In fact,
according to the League of Conservation Voters, I have one of the
highest environmental ratings of any Member in my State and most
Members in Congress.
But let me get down to brass tacks. I wish we had the money to do
everything we need to do today, not only about this, but certainly
about the residual of the events of September 11. I wish we had the
money to increase funding for conservation and make certain our farmers
get what they need. Unfortunately, this House, in my opinion, passed an
unwise tax cut months ago, and we must now live with the consequences
and within the budget that we passed. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have recognized
that and have forged a good farm bill for us all to consider, and they
are to be complimented along with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Lucas) and the subcommittee as it pertains to this particular measure
being debated.
This is not an either-or situation. It is simply a false argument to
say that you are either for conservation or for farmers. I am both. And
the authors of this bill, Chairman Combest, Ranking Member Stenholm and
others, have provided $16 billion for conservation programs. This
represents a 75 percent increase over current funding. A 75 percent
increase. I challenge any of my colleagues in the House to find another
program that we give such an increase.
Look, there is an old expression around here that everything that
needs to be said has been said, but everyone has not said it yet, so I
am not going to go on much longer, Mr. Chairman, but I think the
ranking member of the committee the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
had it right when he said that this amendment cuts the legs out from
under our farmers. I could not agree more.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support the
underlying bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind amendment. I
want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his comments, because I
think they help us to focus on what our farm bill is really about. It
is about American workers and American consumers. That is how I think
we have to examine this amendment. In my opinion, this amendment is
going to do great harm to the American workers that the gentleman from
Florida just spoke to but also to the American consumer. The reason is
this: This farm bill is dedicated to the proposition that America is a
land that has been noted throughout its history for producing the
greatest, most abundant, safest and most affordable food supply
anywhere in the world.
{time} 1445
That is what this bill is designed to do. The Kind amendment will
have a devastating effect on our ability to hold down food prices in
this country because we will do something that is totally
inappropriate.
The base bill has an 80 percent increase in programs that promote
conservation in this country, and that is good. Nobody in this room
does not want to protect our environment. But when you increase that
money by 400 or more percent, you are wasting that money. You are using
it in ways that will take land out of agricultural production
unnecessarily and increase the cost of producing grains and other food
items across this country.
My farmers in Virginia, by and large, are those very folks that have
been described here today who have another job in town and spend a good
deal of their time attempting to make some living off of the
agricultural production they have. They are mostly cattle farmers,
dairy farmers, and the largest production in my district is poultry,
chickens, and turkeys.
Now, these folks, in order to have a profitable livelihood, spend the
vast amount of the cost of their production on buying grains from
Midwestern farmers. When the price of those grains goes up because the
amount of production is down, then the cost that they have to spend
goes up; and for a poultry farmer, 80 percent of what they spend their
money on are grains. When they do that, when the price of grain goes
up, it devastates the profitability to them. That in turn results in
increased costs.
Whether it is a product that directly comes from the grain, like
bread and pasta and so on, or whether it is a meat product that is fed
by those grains, either way the cost to the consumer goes up
significantly with this amendment.
The second reason I oppose this amendment is that we are attempting
to rewrite the farm bill here on the floor, when we could have had the
opportunity to debate this in the committee. The amendment was
discussed and withdrawn, and it was not voted on. We did not get a
vote, as the gentleman from Illinois accurately portrayed earlier, from
the 51 members of the Committee on Agriculture, to see what America's
farmers feel. Some here have stood up and said we are doing this for
the farmers. The 51 members of that committee represent America's
farmers as well as anybody, and I can tell you this amendment was
withdrawn because it would have had no chance of success in that
committee.
Finally, I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry; and I want to say that
this amendment would have a devastating impact upon the forestry
programs that have been built into the farm bill. For the first time we
have a significant increase in the attention we are paying to the
management of our forest lands, both public and private. This bill does
the private part of that.
The amendment has redundant programs. The amendment has changes in it
that eliminate important accountability requirements. Existing easement
and cost-share forestry programs and the FLEP program require the
involvement of the State foresters and the stewardship coordinating
committee, made up of a broad cross-section of conservationists. These
programs secure State, community, and local support for their
objectives. The Boehlert-Kind approach gives the authority to
Washington. It ignores local
[[Page H6309]]
priorities and has no reporting mechanism to tell Congress what they
achieve.
This is not good government, it is not even good conservation, and it
is certainly not a good use of the taxpayers' limited dollars.
The Watershed Forestry Initiative contained in the amendment limits
the practices available to land managers to achieve their goals.
Forestry management is extremely complex and varies tremendously across
the country.
I urge my colleagues to retain that flexibility included in the
underlying bill to promote good conservation with a reasonable increase
in that conservation, but, most importantly, to look after the consumer
and the American worker.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because conservation payments
will help boost farm and ranch income without encouraging production of
even greater surpluses that lower crop prices.
As the Bush administration reported 2 weeks ago, traditional crop
subsidies have triggered the production of huge surpluses that have
lowered crop prices. Congress has responded by providing emergency
payments to farmers, but these payments have also encouraged even
greater production and even greater surpluses.
In particular, the Bush administration concluded that these subsidies
have inflated farmland prices, making it harder for smaller producers
to compete. The challenge, Mr. Chairman, is to boost farm and ranch
income without triggering the production of huge crop surpluses.
Conservation payments, unlike subsidy payments, cannot be used to
produce more crops, but are instead used to change production methods
to help the environment.
Conservation payments have two additional benefits: they reward
farmers for protecting and improving water quality and wildlife
habitat, and they ensure that we comply with our international trade
agreements.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, farmers want to conserve and provide more open
space. Nationally, more than 190,000 farmers were rejected this year
when they sought water quality grants from USDA. In my State of
California, farmers are facing a $122.8 million conservation backlog.
Across the country, farmers are facing a $2 billion conservation
backlog. This amendment will help all farmers boost their income
without triggering the growth of huge surpluses that lower crop prices.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the Kind amendment.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment before
us, because it provides us with a tremendous opportunity to combine
needed agricultural assistance to a broad array of farmers with
environmental protection.
I would like to first of all commend the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture and ranking member, who authored the underlying bill before
us, for incorporating significant increases in our conservation
programs. But the fact is that we can do more. We should do more to
ensure that all of our Nation's farmers have equitable access to
Federal assistance by further expanding our conservation programs. This
amendment provides much of this needed equity.
I share the disappointment of many farmers in my own area of
Wisconsin who seek assistance for sound environmental practices, but
are turned away because these programs are oversubscribed.
The benefits of this amendment for a State like Wisconsin are
obvious. The dairy farmers, especially crop producers that dominate my
State's agriculture, will have an opportunity to access assistance that
would otherwise be unavailable to them. Farmers in my area will receive
an 8 percent increase in agricultural assistance under this amendment
compared with the base bill.
At the same time, this amendment does not preclude commodity
producers from accessing this assistance either. The amendment simply
increases the Federal Government's encouragement for sound
environmental practices and gives all farmers a greater opportunity to
receive assistance.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment moves the bill significantly in the
direction requested by our President and our Secretary of Agriculture
as outlined in their submission to the Congress and the country, over a
100-page agriculture policy statement. They have been working on this.
Along with the Senate, I hope we can work better as a team with our
administration.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding so I may
clarify a couple of points.
Again, our amendment and the offsets we would find under the farm
bill would affect 3 percent of the farmers in this country. We hold
harmless 90 percent of the commodity producers who are currently
receiving subsidy payments. Of those 3 percent, they are still going to
be receiving under our amendment to the base bill a doubling of the
subsidy payments that they were receiving under the last farm bill
passed in 1996, which just goes to point out the intense concentration
of subsidy payments going to a few, but very large, commodity producers
throughout the country.
Perhaps Mike Kort, the Nebraska corn farmer who received $73,000 in
subsidy payments last year alone said it best: ``There have to be
limits. Why are we giving millions of dollars to millionaires?''
There has been some reference that we bypassed the committee process.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We did not spring this
amendment on people. We had a discussion in committee. We tried working
with the committee and the staff to try to work something out before
the bill came to the floor.
But the truth is this: over 80 percent of farm bill funding goes to
15 States in this country; over 80 percent to 15 States. Those 15
States are very well represented on the Committee on Agriculture. This
is a democracy. There are 35 other States that would like to have a say
in the crafting of farm policy. There are 384 other Representatives who
do not serve on the Committee on Agriculture who also have a right to
be heard in regards to the direction of our support for family farmers
in all regions. That is why we are here today discussing this
amendment.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand today to urge the passage of the
Kind-Boehlert-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment. This amendment supports
incentive-based measures critical to the success of farming and
conservation programs.
As we stand here this afternoon, hundreds of thousands of farmers
seeking Federal assistance to improve water quality, preserve
threatened farms from sprawl or restore wetlands, grasslands and other
important wildlife habitat are rejected due to inadequate funding.
Nationwide, half of the farmers seeking technical assistance are
rejected due to lack of funding.
This amendment would boost funding for farmland and wildlife habitat
protection programs, boost funding to reduce runoff and restore 300,000
acres of wetlands each year. It would also provide grants for farmers'
markets, boost funding for planting trees along urban rivers, eliminate
barriers to organic food production, and encourage forest protection
and enhancement.
Increasing the annual funding for voluntary incentive-based
conservation programs not only will help protect the environment, but
also will contribute to farm and ranch income, ease regulatory burdens,
and reduce water treatment costs.
Unless we reward farmers when they meet our environmental challenges,
one-third of our rivers and lakes will remain polluted and millions of
acres of open space will be lost forever.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the other cosponsors
for their leadership demonstrated in the changes proposed.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, appreciate my friends and what they are trying
to accomplish with their amendment. I believe that they are well
intended. But
[[Page H6310]]
the fact of the matter is, this does have a devastating effect on all
the people that we are trying to help with this bill. In fact, the
analysis referred to earlier suggests that South Dakota, my home State,
would lose $245 million in the first 3 years of this bill under this
amendment.
Now, there has been a lot of discussion today about big States and
small States and some discussion about reapportionment; and while some
of the bigger States are figuring out how they are going to redivide
their congressional representation, South Dakota does not have that
problem. We only have one in the Congress, and so does North Dakota,
with my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), and
other States in the rural areas of this country.
We do not have a lot of people in South Dakota. We have about 730,000
people in my State, about 32,000 farmers. Yet those 730,000 people grow
the food that feeds the world. You look at any list of production in
South Dakota, whether it is wheat or corn or soybeans or livestock, or
any of the areas in the Midwest. Those rural areas do not have a lot of
people, but we grow a lot of food and we raise a lot of crops. It is
the family farmers who are doing that.
There has been some discussion about who it benefits and who it
helps. Granted, when we went across the country and had hearings, I
went to places in the United States that I am not all that familiar
with in terms of their farming techniques and practices. We went to
California and we listened to people who raised fruits and vegetables,
and we went to Kentucky and heard from people who grow tobacco. Those
are not things that I am intimately familiar with when it comes to
farming practices and techniques.
Yet we had to structure a balance in this bill that takes into
consideration all the various aspects of agriculture, all the types of
producer groups around this country. And we heard from all of them. The
committee was diligent in gathering testimony and taking written record
and hours and hours and hours of testimony from producers from all
across the United States about what they wanted to see in a new farm
bill.
What we came up with was this product. Granted, it may not be
perfect. There were things in here that I would like to change, there
are things I would like included, there are things I would probably
like to have taken out. But the reality is, this is a balance; and we
have to do our best to accommodate all the various interests.
I want to tell Members something: the environmentalists did not get
slighted in this bill. The EQIP program is the Environmental Quality
Incentive Program. It is currently funded at about $200 million a year.
This bill increases that to $1.2 billion a year. The reason there are
so many people lined up because there is not enough funding is because
it was not funded adequately.
{time} 1500
This bill address that problem. The environmental communities, the
conservation communities, they were all heard from. Everybody had an
opportunity. We spent 18 months, 18 months to get to where we are
today. We have a balance. Everybody may not like it, but the reality is
we have to take what we have and work with it.
We have farms in South Dakota, on average about 1,300 acres. There
are places I saw when I went across this country. We have bigger
gardens in South Dakota than some of the farms that people are talking
about here on the floor today, those small acreages. I understand that.
Everybody comes to this debate wanting to make sure that their views
are represented. But the fact of the matter is that we have to find and
strike that balance that represents all of the agricultural interests
and the conservation interests and the environmental interests and try
and do it in a way and put a bill together that is good for American
agriculture. We have tried to do that with this legislation.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, what I would simply say, inasmuch as the
authors of this amendment are well intended, that if this amendment is
adopted to this bill, it will destroy what is a very fragile and
delicate balance which has been built up over the last 18 months with
thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of testimony, and hours
and hours and hours of hearing from the groups who have an interest in
this debate.
It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we move forward and that we
defeat the amendment, that we adopt the final bill, and make sure that
those farmers in places like South Dakota who are producing the food
and fiber that is feeding the world get out of this economic recession
that they have been in for the last 5 years. It is not new to them. We
are talking about a recession in this country now, but believe me, the
people in my State and in the Midwest and the rural areas that grow the
food know what this recession is, because they have been in it for the
last 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, this is about food security for America. That is what
this debate is about. We need to keep this balance together and move
this bill forward and do it so that we can get a farm bill passed and
signed into law.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have been through five of these debates on farm bills
now over my almost 23 years here, and at this point in time I usually
come to the same conclusion. I come back and think of the words of Will
Rogers when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so
much, it's them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.''
As I have listened to so many well-intentioned individuals who
support this amendment, which I am very enthusiastically opposed to, we
tend to stretch the truth for all good and valid purposes. Let me say
this. As I attended all of the 10 field hearings last year and most, if
not all, of every one of the full committee hearings this year, I, at
some point in time, acknowledged that this was going to be the greenest
farm bill in the five that I have participated in and I was going to be
supporting it.
To those that criticize us for not having a green enough farm bill,
look at it compared to, we have heard the numbers, a 78 percent
increase in conservation. Now, I wanted $5 billion. I could have stood
on this floor with those of my colleagues who are for the Boehlert
amendment today and argued for them. In fact, I did. Earlier this year,
when I supported the Blue Dog budget, we had $5 billion a year for
conservation. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) voted no. The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) voted no. I can go down the list of everyone else
who were original cosponsors of the bill, that when they had a chance
to put the money in to do what they say today, they did not do it.
Which is fine.
I want to say right up front, anybody who wants to challenge me,
anybody who wants to enter into a little debate, I will willing to talk
to them. I will not be offended if they interrupt me. I think we need a
little discussion on these points because some of our colleagues are
going to get a little confused about what the facts are. I would
support more. But, remember, the budget that we passed gave the
Committee on Agriculture $79 billion to work with. Now, I lost, you
won. I worked with my chairman to bring a bill to the floor, $79
billion, of which we spent $5.5 on emergency; and we have $73.5 left.
Fine. I would love to do more for the commodities that my colleagues
want to take away from.
In fact, I have a difficult time convincing my farmers and other
farmers in the country that having a bill that gives you 1990 price
guarantees is a good bill. Now, some of my colleagues would cut from
that. This amendment that is before us, you just say we are going to
hold harmless 90 percent and we are going to take it from 10 percent.
Now, the 90 percent that you hold harmless are landlords, retirees,
hobby farmers, investors, and some producers, some producers. The 10
percent are all producers that happen to produce 85 percent of all of
the food and fiber that is produced in this country.
Now, would we like to do more? Absolutely. The problem the committee
had was we had to balance competing interests. We had nutrition
concerns. I am proud of the nutrition title and most everyone in this
body on both sides of the aisle that are concerned about feeding the
hungry people and doing more are also supportive of this bill.
[[Page H6311]]
I would love to do more for rural development. I could do it, but we
did not have the money. And we get criticized because we are busting
the budget. The President says we are busting the budget. No, we are
not. We are not. The budget passed. I would love to do more in the area
of research. We can justify it. But the Committee on Agriculture, 51 of
us, had to look at the competing interests and had to put together a
bill that would do the best possible job we could for each of those,
and that was our judgment.
Now, I do not begrudge anybody for coming in here and having a
different opinion. I do not. In fact, that is why we asked for an open
rule. But anyone that votes for this amendment and expects us to move
forward with a balanced bill, you are going to be absolutely and
completely disappointed. It cannot be done. The chairman has stated it
very clearly, I support him 100 percent, and to all of those who have
other interests on my side of the aisle, be careful what you vote for
lest you might get it. This is the best possible bill we could bring to
this body to send to the other body for the President's consideration,
based on the art of the possible, based on the competing interests.
Now, I find it interesting that when we start talking about payments,
the gentleman from Wisconsin said, 174 percent of the net farm income
last year was government payments, and yet somehow the gentleman
proposes to cut those and feels that he is going to be benefited.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Stenholm was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that so many of my
colleagues are overlooking or misreading is that if we are going to
have conservation on farms, the farmer has to have some money in which
to put up his 25 to 50 percent of the matching funds. If we take away
the farm income, there will be no conservation on the ground, other
than those who happen to be buying the land that are not farmers. Those
of the more upper-incomed among us, who have the money through other
occupations, that buy the land are the ones that will use these
conservation funds if we take away the ability of the American farmer
to make a profit on his farm.
That is what this amendment does today. We take away that ability,
and somehow we have allowed ourselves to be convinced by some other
folks who have an entirely different agenda from what agriculture ought
to be, we have allowed them to convince us that we are going to be
helping farmers. Could not be farther from the truth.
It was fascinating, listening to the dairy argument earlier today in
which we were concerned about dairy farmers and developers. Developers
will love this amendment. Farmers will hurt badly if this amendment
should pass.
Mr. Chairman, I most sincerely ask my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, oppose this amendment, stick with the committee regarding this
bill. It is the best possible compromise that we can have that meets
all of the competing interests, not just a few.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I want to
talk about two different aspects of this bill.
First of all, times are tough out in agriculture country right now. I
do not care what farmers are growing, what part of the country they are
in. We are seeing tough times from the standpoint of the hazards that
farmers have to deal with, whether it is weather, whether it is
hurricanes or some combination of both; but the biggest problem that
farmers have out there today is that we are seeing the lowest commodity
prices we have seen across the spectrum in 30 years. It does not make
any difference whether it is corn in the Midwest or peanuts or cotton
in my part of the world, farming is a tough, tough business today.
What the chairman and the ranking member did with this base farm bill
is to come up with a proposal that actually provides a safety net for
our farmers. The trigger is that if prices are high our farmers are not
going to get government help; but if prices are low, they are going to
get extended a helping hand from the Federal Government to help them
out. And that is the way it ought to be.
This bill takes about $2 billion a year out of the commodity side of
this farm bill and puts it into conservation. Do we need to concentrate
on conservation? Sure we do. But what does this base bill do? This base
bill takes an additional $37 billion over the next 10 years and puts it
into conservation programs. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas),
the chairman of the subcommittee, did an excellent job of putting more
money into conservation; but the one thing that we never need to forget
in this town is that the biggest environmentalists and the biggest
conservationists in the world are our farmers. We do not make a living
off the land. The farmer makes a living off the land, and they want to
do everything they can to conserve and preserve their land.
Now, I am a sportsman. I, along with the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Peterson), cochaired the Sportsmens' Caucus the last 2 years. I
love to hunt and fish as much as anybody in the world. We are
conservationists as hunters and fishermen, and we appreciate the
outdoors. But what we need is more farmers producing more grains to
feed the wildlife that we love to hunt, and we need more farmers
protecting the fields and streams that we love to fish in. How do we do
that? Do we do that by providing farm programs that pay people not to
grow products, or do we do that by paying farmers who are having a
tough time with commodity prices being what they are and encourage them
to do a better job of being more efficient and growing more and better
quality products so that we can enjoy the outdoors?
Mr. Chairman, I think the answer is pretty simple. I encourage a no
vote on this amendment.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The farm bill before us, Mr. Chairman, restores a critical piece to
the safety net that will keep family farmers on the land. That piece is
protection when prices collapse, because it does not matter how good a
farmer you are, if you are paid less the elevator for your crop than it
costs you to grow it, you are going to grow out of business.
Now, my problem with the Kind amendment is that it takes money away
from that safety net for family farmers and puts it over into the
conservation programs. I think that conservation is an imperative
national goal; I also think it is an inherent part of how our family
farmers operate. They cannot foul up the land. That is where they live.
That is what produces their income. They are the greatest land stewards
we will ever find.
I am very intrigued and interested by the notion that we ought to
structure ways of paying farmers for the conservation practices they
implement on their land for all of us. But not this way, not with this
amendment, not by giving them the appearance of something on the one
hand and taking away something very real, very tangible, protection
when prices collapse, on the other hand.
It has been estimated that this amendment would cost the family
farmers in my State more than $300 million over 3 years, more than $100
million a year farm income lost if the Kind amendment would pass. That
is a hit we cannot take. We have people that are using machinery that
is wrecked. They cannot afford new, they just make do.
We have areas of the land that are literally depopulating because the
economics, the fundamental ability to make it on a farm has been placed
at such risk when we have a farm program without safety net price
protection. That is why we need the bill, and that is why we must
reject this amendment. Again, do not get me wrong. Conservation: good
thing, bad thing? Of course it is a good thing. Should we look at ways
to reward farmers for their stewardship practices? I think we should.
{time} 1515
But what is before us right now is a farm bill at last putting in
price protection for farmers, and we cannot play fast and loose with
this imperative of fixing the farm program. First things first. The
first thing is price protection for farmers. They desperately need it.
[[Page H6312]]
This whole conservation issue, let us continue to evaluate it. Maybe
more can be done in the Senate. This was withdrawn before a vote in the
Committee on Agriculture. It did not receive a considered discussion.
It did not even go to a committee vote. So for us to come over to the
House floor and kind of stomp around and start rewriting in wholesale
fashion the farm bill is a terrible idea, especially when it takes away
the money we need to restore the safety net for price protection.
There is another feature to the bill that I think we want to
consider. That is the $3.5 billion we have been able to add for
nutrition funding. If this amendment would pass, that effort is also
placed at great risk. If this amendment passes, the bill may be down
the tubes, taking with it the extra funding critically needed to
address some of the shortcomings in the assistance we need to those who
cannot afford food.
I commend the sponsor of the amendment. I know his heart is in the
right place. He has fundamentally a very interesting idea, but
strategically, those of us who care about agriculture, and broader than
that, those of us who care about the Nation's food supply, should not
do this this afternoon. It tips over the farm bill at a time when we
have to fix it so badly.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
(Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in
support of the bill as reported.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak today in opposition to the Kind-
Boehlert-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment and in support of HR 2646 as
reported.
The 80% increase to conservation programs proposed by HR 2646 is
proof that this congress believes in the protection of the nation's
natural resources. With an over 800% increase to the EQIP program and
the proposed Grassland Reserve program, those who make their living
through best management practices will receive the tools needed to
protect and enhance the environment. The conservation title in this
Bill meets the needs of the nation's farmer's and ranchers while
maintaining an affordable and abundant food supply and a clean and
healthy environment. The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act started us in the
right direction in making conservation a vital part of farm policy. The
popularity of the EQIP program born out of that legislation is proof
that farmers and ranchers respond when given the proper tools. In my
district over 30% of those who apply to receive cost share under the
EQIP program are rejected not because of their worthiness but because
of insufficient funding. HR 2646 will make those projects a reality.
Now is not the time to rewrite the conservation title of the farm
bill with an amendment that is confusing at best. Chairman Combest and
the AG committee have spent the past two years holding more than 50
hearings throughout the U.S. to gain input to the bill that we are
considering today. They have listened to producers of livestock,
organic growers, crop farmers, government agencies and those who are
concerned about our natural resources. Now the proposed amendment
before us threatens to undo that work, not only of the committee, but
by the 100's of people who took time away from their daily schedules to
help craft what is before us today.
I stand here today to urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment and support the Conservation Title of HR 2646 as written. It
is the right thing to do for those on the front lines of protecting our
environment and conserving our natural resources for future
generations.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in respectful opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and I
appreciate very much the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) about getting back to the facts.
As the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture reflected earlier
today, we have only had 36 hours to review the contents of the Kind
amendment, but I have made an effort to do that. In recent weeks there
has been a lot of talk about the large backlog of farmers and ranchers
who are waiting to participate in the USDA's conservation programs. The
proposal today suggests that the answer to that would be to shift
nearly $2 billion from commodity support programs to conservation.
Before we accept this rhetoric, Mr. Chairman, I invite Members to
break down the dollars and look at the facts of the Kind amendment and
see how they purport to deal with this conservation backlog.
First, the Kind amendment allocates funding for several programs at
levels substantially beyond what the Natural Resources Conservation
Service has indicated is necessary to address the number of outstanding
applications.
For example, in the case of the farmland protection program, the NRCS
estimates it would take an additional $281 million to meet current
demand. Yet, the Kind amendment funds this program at $500 million per
year.
Another example: The wildlife habitat incentives program. The NRCS
has stated it would take $19 million to meet demand, while the Kind
amendment allocates $500 million per year.
When looking at the funding level for conservation programs, we
cannot lose sight of the fact that these programs are voluntary in
nature. In other words, the money does no good unless there is an
equivalent level of demand from producers to use them.
Moreover, we cannot forget that these programs also involve cost
share assistance, and if producers do not have an adequate safety net
to sustain the bottom line, money available for cost-share arrangements
will likewise go unused.
Point number two, as we look at the Kind amendment, several hurdles
in the amendment will actually prevent these funds from assisting a
large portion of America's farmers and ranchers with critical
conservation needs. There are significant amounts of targeted and
earmarked funding. The Kind amendment is actually riddled with numerous
restrictions that target funding towards specific geographic regions
and earmark program money for particular issue areas.
For example, the legislation would spend over $1 billion for a pilot
program available to only five impaired watersheds. Similarly, it would
require that over 40 percent of the $14 billion in EQUIP monies be
spent on just four specific environmental efforts.
Further, the Kind amendment pumps money into programs which have a
low producer interest, because this legislation has been written or
encouraged by the environmental lobby, rather than by actual farmers.
Lastly, this legislation promotes pork barrel spending. Rather than
responding to producer requests gathered throughout all of the hearings
over the last 2 years, both on Capitol Hill and around the country, the
Kind amendment spends large sums of money on projects which do nothing
but feed an already thriving government bureaucracy.
Mr. Chairman, I do not represent the thriving government bureaucracy.
I do not represent an environmental lobby that looks at a 78 percent
increase in conservation funding and says, that is not enough. I
represent farmers in Indiana. For that reason, I very respectfully
oppose the Kind amendment, and urge my colleagues to join me in doing
likewise.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kind-Boehlert-
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment, and I thank them for their leadership on
this issue of conservation policy for our Nation's farmland. I, for
one, believe the farm bill has room for this amendment, and in fact, I
believe the bill is improved with it.
Mr. Chairman, my district, Marin and Sonoma Counties, just across the
Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, is very fortunate to have
productive working farmland like dairies and vineyards. In fact, we
provide 50 percent of the Bay area's milk products, and, of course,
Members all know about Sonoma County wines.
It is because of the diversity of agriculture that the Sixth District
of California has one of the lowest unemployment rates and one of the
highest income levels in this Nation, and it is because of the
agriculture that I represent one of the most beautiful areas in the
world.
The dairies in particular in my district are mainly small, family-
owned operations that have been in business for four or five
generations, and because many of these dairies are within 30 miles of
downtown San Francisco, preserving these productive lands is a
[[Page H6313]]
top priority of my constituents, and it should be for the Congress.
But my farmers are often frustrated by the lack of funds and
technical assistance available to them to protect water supplies,
reduce pesticide applications, provide adequate habitat for wildlife,
enhance food safety, or, in general, protect their farms and our open
space from encroaching development.
Less than 10 percent of Federal farm spending is directed towards
conservation. Without the Kind-Boehlert amendment, farm policy will
continue to fail to keep up with the growing demand over the next 5
years. That is why the House must pass the Kind-Boehlert amendment and
reward farmers and ranchers like my constituents, who want to
participate in voluntary incentive-based conservation efforts.
If my colleague's amendment succeeds, commodity crop farmers would
still receive twice as much funding as they received under the 1996
farm bill, an 11 percent increase over current funding levels. In
addition to helping commodity crop farmers by passing the Kind-Boehlert
amendment, we would be wisely investing in farm policy that also
recognizes the value of small family farmers.
That, Mr. Chairman, is fair and smart public policy. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, one of the earlier speakers made a comment about how
this amendment would be bad for the watershed. How I would like to
respond to that is that contained in this amendment is a new approach
to protecting watersheds so that we do not have to have each individual
farmer apply for the conservation programs that will improve water
quality, but we can do it with a number of farmers getting together, a
number of farmers getting together in one State, or we could do it with
a number of farmers getting together in a multi-State region which is
protecting, truly, a broad watershed area.
So contained in this amendment is a specific program with specific
criteria to use agriculture and the conservation program to protect the
water quality in a watershed.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind Amendment to
the Farm Bill. H.R. 2646, as reported by the House Agriculture
Committee, provides an unprecedented 80% increase in soil and water
conservation programs above current spending levels that firmly meets
the needs of America's farm families. This bill builds on the popular
and important conservation programs established in previous bills. The
conservation section devotes over $16 billion over 10 years to soil,
water and wildlife programs. It increases CRP acreage to 39.2 million
acres, WRP to 1.5 million acres, creates a Grasslands Reserve Program
up to 2 million acres, funds WHIP to $500 million, and finally, the
conservation title will help MANY many family farms in North Carolina
by funding the Environmental Quality Incentives Program at $1.285
billion, including a $600 million fund is created in EQIP to address
surface and ground water conservation issues, including cost share for
more efficient irrigation systems. Obviously, this bill will go far in
helping our farmers continue be our Nation's best land stewards.
To my colleagues who support this amendment, I ask why this was not
brought up in Committee? At no time during the Committee's
consideration of this bill did Mr. Kind offer his amendment. Why?
Because he knew he didn't have the votes to pass it, and America's
farmers adamantly oppose it. In addition, I would add that the
sportsmen in my district oppose this amendment. This amendment
undermines all the hard work we've done and it undermines future
conservation benefits and I urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would and pick up on the remarks of the gentleman
from Texas about the valid and important issues in this discussion.
Simply put, Mr. Chairman, to my colleagues who support this
amendment, I ask them, why was this amendment not brought up in the
committee? The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) said that they
discussed it. That is fine. But what he did not say was that as this
discussion took place, it was obvious that he did not have the votes in
committee to pass it.
What does that mean? It means that the people of this House who are
most interested in and probably most informed about agriculture did not
support his well-intentioned amendment. Sportsmen and farmers in my
district in North Carolina also very strongly oppose this amendment, as
I do.
An interesting contrast, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune)
spoke very eloquently in opposition to this amendment. He also had an
amendment which he brought up in committee, and we discussed it over
and over and over for hours and hours. The amendment was defeated, and
that was the end of that. It is not here on the floor, as this
amendment is and should not be.
Because of the nature of this amendment and because of the need for
balance in this bill, please join me in opposing this amendment, which
undermines all the hard work, the field hearings, all of the
information that has been gathered, and it undermines conservation
benefits.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do thank the committee for this important discussion.
I find it exceedingly valuable.
I am one of the people who the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
referred to who is not an expert in agriculture. I do not pretend to
be. But it is important to me, and I took the time this summer to talk
to people in my State who are the experts, people on the board of
agriculture, practicing farmers, leaders in the industry.
They made it clear to me that this was an opportunity for this
Congress to seize the opportunity to begin reforming agriculture for
the next century. The current system, I was told, and I dearly believe,
and nothing that I have read in connection with the debate here today
leads me to feel otherwise, that is, that our system was great to lead
us out of the Depression, and it does indeed continue to help many
economic interests, but it does not, for instance, help what happens in
my State for the majority of people who are involved with agriculture.
This amendment that we are debating here today is an opportunity for
us to step forward that is going to make a difference in our community.
I would like to dwell on one particular item, the farmland protection
program, which would receive much needed increased funding under this
amendment.
There currently is a backlog of over $250 million for the voluntary
purchase of conservation easements under this program. The previous
farm bill in 1996 and the currently proposed farm bill did not and will
not come close to providing the funding necessary to meet the current
waiting list of farmers. Right now, three out of four who apply to
participate are turned away.
The current bill limits the farmland protection program to $50
million a year. This amendment reauthorizes the farmland protection
program through the year 2011, funded at $100 million in fiscal year
2002, increasing to one-half a billion dollars annually by 2006.
It is important to understand that the farmland protection program
does not just benefit farmers, it benefits communities everywhere. The
farmland protection program, as its name implies, allows the farmers to
continue working the land. They receive payment for doing what they
intend to do, keeping the land as farmland. This is particularly
important in the vast amounts of prime farmland around our metropolitan
areas, where increasing land values make it difficult for farmers to
keep their land as farmland.
{time} 1530
Nationally this prime farmland produces 85 percent of domestic fruit
and vegetables. Almost 80 percent of our dairy production takes place
in what we are calling urban-influenced counties. They are under
relentless pressure. There were 3.2 million acres converted to
nonagricultural uses between 1992 and 1997, double the rate of previous
years. There are 90 million acres that are threatened by sprawl.
When I was born, the number one agricultural county in the United
States, and this is only half a century ago, was Los Angeles. What
county is going to be lost next?
[[Page H6314]]
We are developing land at twice the rate of the increase in
population growth. But it is not just the farmers that benefit. We have
talked about how disconnected the general public is from the practice
of agriculture. We are protecting this land for agricultural purposes
around the metropolitan area to make it easier for the public to
understand how valuable it is and that sugar does not just come from
candy bars and fruit and vegetables do not come from tin cans.
The Farmland Protection Act helps the surrounding communities by
saving taxpayer money. Farmland or open space costs on average about
one-third of the amount of money as it produces from taxes. Residential
development, to the contrary, costs local governments about 25 percent
more. Cities and towns can save billions of dollars in municipal water
and treatment costs. Protecting wetlands and streams prevents the cost
of water treatment downstream.
Our communities and taxpayers want farmland protection. Survey
research demonstrates that the public would like to have their Federal
tax dollars by strong majorities used to keep farmland from being
developed. Seventy-five percent think that farm support payments should
require farmers to practice conservation.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Blumenauer was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, supporting this amendment is a step
away from the Depression era of farm support. It is an opportunity to
us to step forward, to help farmers voluntarily protect their land,
save tax dollars, meet the needs that are building up now, and help us,
in a State like Oregon, help protect farmland for generations to come.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the base bill before us. The
committee has done a good job of balancing various interests before it.
I am pleased that the committee has significantly increased the
conservation title of the bill but has done so in a manner that does
not jeopardize the rest of the agricultural needs of our Nation.
Let us look at what the base bill does, H.R. 2646. It includes an
average of $1.285 billion per year in the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program or EQIP, plus an additional fund of $60 million per
year to address water issues. It increases total acreage in the
conservation program to 39.2 million acres. It allows an additional 1.5
million acres to be added to the Wetlands Reserve Program. It provides
$500 million over the life of the farm bill to eradicate the backlog
and provide for new enrollment in the Farmland Protection Program. It
increases funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, or WHIP,
from $25 million per year this year to $50 million a year by the year
2011. It increases enrollment in the grasslands reserve program to 2
million acres.
The ranking minority member was quite accurate when he said this is a
green bill. There are good provisions that continue to move us forward
in this bill in the whole arena of conservation. I joined the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and other Members the last time we
considered the farm bill 5 years ago in restoring cuts that have been
made in the conservation title. That was a good thing to do then and
that was good policy.
The bill before us continues in that responsible plan. The amendment
before us I think raises some serious concerns. It raises some
financial concerns. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Combest) raised some serious concerns about the possible
serious adverse consequences associated with the Kind amendment on our
budget.
We have just approved a $50 billion program to provide defense needs,
disaster needs, to address airline concerns. We are now talking about
an even larger package to get the economy going again, something in the
range of $75 billion. I think we need to proceed very cautiously.
The Kind-Boehlert amendment, although maybe well intended, will
mandate additional spending and will leave less room for dealing with
potential economic problems that could arise for our farmers.
I join the Florida Farm Bureau in supporting the base bill and
opposing the Kind-Boehlert amendment. The base bill has the support of
the Florida Association of Conservation Districts and the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Commission. The Florida Farm Bureau opposes the Kind-
Boehlert amendment, and I urge my Florida colleagues to join me in
supporting the work of the Committee on Agriculture and to vote against
the Kind-Boehlert amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include with my remarks a letter from the Florida
Farm Bureau.
Florida Farm Bureau Federation,
Gainesville, FL, September 27, 2001.
Hon. David J. Weldon,
U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Weldon: Congress will be taking up H.R.
2646, the Farm Bill, next week and we recently sent you a
letter relaying our support of the bill. However, the section
of the Farm Bill that deals with conservation has received a
lot of attention in the media recently and there's an effort
underway by Representative Kind to offer substitute language
to the bill which is based on his legislation, H.R. 2375. On
behalf of our members I would like to relay to you our
support of the House Agriculture Committee-passed
conservation language and provide you our concerns with H.R.
2375.
First off, let me say that H.R. 2375 does make an effort to
increase funding for technical assistance and other important
conservation programs. However, the increased funding does
not necessarily mean that Florida producers will be able to
access the added funding. Several requirements illustrated in
the bill prohibit many of our producers from being eligible
for conservation funds and the additional funds are carved
out of other parts of the bill which is already stretched to
meet the needs of production agriculture.
To elaborate on our concerns with H.R. 2375, I offer this:
H.R. 2375 prohibits a producer who is subject to an
environmental permit under the federal Clean Water Act from
receiving cost-share assistance under the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program. This provision is not acceptable
given that pending revised clean water rules dealing with
CAFO's and AFO's could subject a large majority, if not all,
livestock producers in Florida to regulation. This provision
would keep a large percentage of our dairy and poultry
farmers from being able to access cost-share funding for
conservation practices.
H.R. 2375 would push an unmanageable level of funding into
the Department of Agriculture for conservation programs and
this increased funding does come at a cost for farmers in
other regions of the country. Without an adequate framework
in place, this money will do little to improve the
environmental quality for our working lands resulting in the
wasteful and inefficient use of precious taxpayer dollars.
H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001, increases
conservation funding 75 percent above the current baseline.
To fund environmental programs proposed in H.R. 2375 we will
have to raid funds already allocated in other important areas
of the bill. Politically this is not the right avenue to take
and we should not cause a situation where sectors of the
agriculture industry will be trying to benefit at the
detriment of others. The Kind bill makes only modest gains in
Florida's level of conservation funding because a large
percentage of the funds go to programs such as Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) and these programs are not widely
utilized by Florida's producers.
H.R. 2375 would place restrictions on producers that have
nothing to do with conservation. For example, this
legislation directs the Secretary to consider the extent to
which livestock producers medicate their animals in selecting
contracts under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Such restrictions would render these programs useless for
mainstream agriculture.
H.R. 2375 contains extensive provisions for forestry yet
none of the central forestry organizations support this
legislation. The Society of American Foresters, the National
Association of State Foresters, the National Council on
Private Forests, the National Association of Professional
Forestry Schools and Colleges, and the American Forest and
Paper Association oppose this bill. They oppose H.R. 2375
because its forestry provisions cannot be implemented. The
legislation is vague, restrictive and not based on sound
science.
We realize that H.R. 2646 is not perfect when it comes to
the conservation section but we believe that it is a more
practicable and realistic approach for Florida's farmers and
ranchers. It is our understanding that the proponents of H.R.
2375 have an amended version of their bill that will be
offered when H.R. 2646 ``The Farm Bill'' is taken up by the
House. We have made inquiries to the sponsor of H.R. 2375 in
an effort to see if our concerns have been addressed and no
one has been able to provide us that assurance. Therefore, we
ask that you consider our concerns and not support this
effort to amend the conservation title of H.R. 2646.
If you need to discuss this issue in more detail or have
any questions please contact
[[Page H6315]]
Ray Hodge in our office. He will be in the Capitol next week
and will come by your office to discuss this and other issues
with your agriculture staff person. Thank you for considering
our concerns and your willingness to support the issues
important to the livelihood of Florida farmers and ranchers
Sincerely,
Carl B. Loop, Jr.,
President.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say what a wonderful job the chairman and the
ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture have done. I appreciate
very much the hard work the gentlemen have put into this.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that I think the sponsors of this
amendment mean well. The people that support this amendment have the
best of intentions.
When I ran for office first in 1996, it was interesting to me that
all of my opponents suddenly had become farmers. If they were not
farmers themselves, in some way they could contrive, they will know a
farmer or their grandfather was a farmer or they would know a lot about
a farmer or they had seen a farmer someplace or they had seen a crop
someplace. But they all wanted to be related to farmers in some way or
another.
I found that interesting today that suddenly we have this great
outpouring of knowledge about agriculture in this body.
I would suspect, and I do not know for sure, that none of the
sponsors of this amendment, and very likely none of the people that
have spoken in favor of it, have ever raised a crop or produced any
significant amount of food.
I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that our job is to make sure that this
country has a food supply, a reliable, safe, reasonably priced food
supply, and in the effort to produce this, we must protect our air and
water quality, and that is what this base bill does. It has been said
over and over that our food policy in this country and our farm policy
in this country is a failure. How can we say that when our producers
are the best there has ever been, they are the most efficient and we
have the most reliable, the safest and the most reasonably priced food
supply of any Nation in the world? Our farmers are on the edge. They
simply are not going to do it any more.
I would submit to the Members a report about USDA's last quarterly
stocks estimate. One of the last paragraphs in that report says if
there is one thought for the Members to be left with regarding today's
stock report, it is that U.S. stocks of every commodity except corn are
smaller today than a year ago, and in some cases dramatically smaller.
Our stocks of food in this country are shrinking.
The national security interest is served by our farmers being able to
stay in business. Certainly they are not getting rich. Most of them are
not even making the cost of production, but one thing I can tell my
colleagues that they do not need is for someone else to create one more
way where the Federal Government can come and tell them what they have
to do with their land.
This amendment would destroy the safety net and drive production
offshore, and it most certainly would cause consolidation, and if we
want to see what corporate farms really look like, we can see what the
result of this amendment would be because it would cause dramatic
consolidation.
The worst thing we can do to conservation is to continue to have a
situation where our farmers cannot stay in business. Poor folks have
poor ways and there is nothing they can do about it because that is all
they have to work with.
We do not need a social engineering program. We need a balanced bill
and that is what this base bill is. I wonder, if this amendment is such
a good idea for farmers, why in the world is there not one, not one
farm organization supporting this bill? I think that pretty well says
it.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I rise to oppose, strenuously oppose the amendment that is being
offered here today. The House Committee on Agriculture has spent
months, years now, beginning in Kansas at the Kansas State Fair 2 years
ago September, taking input from farmers about what we can do to
address the crisis that we face in agriculture. That crisis is real.
We face the circumstances in which the farmers of this country will
not be farming. The economic conditions that American farmers and
ranchers face are serious and getting worse. My farmers talk about what
they do to serve to the next week, to the next month, to the next year.
They talk about if things get any worse they have no option but to sell
the farm and move to town.
The average age of a farmer in Kansas is 58\1/2\ years old. There is
no next generation waiting to take over the farm because there is no
profitability in agriculture, and the idea that we can remedy this
situation by putting more money elsewhere than into farmers' income is
terribly, terribly flawed.
There will be no farmers as stewards of the land absent an income in
which to continue farming. What do we expect ourselves to do when the
farmers are no longer on the land? Do we expect us to hire government
employees to go out and manage the land so that they can perform
conservation practices that our farmers are practicing today?
I care greatly about the use of land, about water quality, about
water quantity. There is no greater conservation environmental issue in
the State of Kansas than the quality of water, and if we have a future
in the State of Kansas, it is because we have a clean and adequate
water supply. I am proud of the efforts of the House Committee on
Agriculture to address conservation environmental issues.
We have spent a lot of time and a lot of effort taking a lot of
input. Our ability to have the people necessary to be in the fields
performing conservation practices is gone, absent the kind of
assistance in the commodity title of this farm bill.
The reality is that life on the farm is tough. It is getting tougher,
and if we care about conservation, if we care about the environment, we
will make certain that those farmers and ranchers are there and we will
oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert).
We need the assistance or we are going to have larger and larger
farms. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) is absolutely right, if
we want to see greater concentration in agriculture, put our farmers
out of business and then only those who are large will be left.
This issue is at the core of whether or not we care about America,
and especially whether or not we care about rural America and if we
want children in the schools across the State of Kansas and across
rural areas of the country and if we want people shopping on Main
Street, the critical issue we face is whether or not our farm families
can make ends meet, and they are not doing it today, and they will not
be helped with the passage of this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I represent the farmers and ranchers and small woodland owners whose
voice is not heard here and have been ignored in some of the previous
debate by other Members.
{time} 1545
These commodity programs flow to a favored few. Now, certainly some
of them are producing crops that are vital to feed our Nation. Others
are producing surplus cotton and other crops and getting subsidized for
that. It is an extraordinarily market-distorting thing. Now, usually
that side of the aisle is arguing for markets, but in this case they
are arguing for market-distorting subsidies. Many of the same people
who are arguing against this amendment were gung ho for the Freedom to
Farm bill a number of years ago. I voted against it. I thought it might
lead to some of these problems. It has led to a record increase in
commodity supports.
And even if this amendment is adopted, there will still be $101
billion going to the commodity support programs. Now, who does it go
to, and who would be hurt under this amendment? Well, under this
amendment, actually 70 percent of the farmers, those who seem to be
ignored in the debate on that side and by a few on this side, that is
dairy, ranchers, fruit and vegetables, I have a lot of those, I have
some dairy, have a
[[Page H6316]]
few ranchers, do not have peanut, sugar, tobacco, and then we have
trees, those are my small wood-lot owners, people who practice
forestry, people who are waiting in line now to get this conservation
money because of problems we have in recovering our salmon runs in the
Pacific Northwest. They are lined up. They are not getting the money,
even with the increase in this bill.
I appreciate the modest increase in the bill, but more is needed. And
this money will benefit this 70 percent of the people who are pretty
much left out of this bill.
Now, there is another 30 percent. And under this amendment, 27
percent of them, almost all of them, will be held harmless. But my
colleagues are right, the top 3 percent, the people who get the largest
subsidies in this country, the ones we read about and hear about on TV,
some of them are even TV commentators, they will get a cut. That is
right, they will get a cut. But they will still get subsidies, very
substantial subsidies, and we will spread this needed money elsewhere.
How needed is it? Well, if we refer to this chart, we see, in fact,
it is quite needed. Right now we are funding conservation at this
level. This is the demand. We are not matching supply and demand. I
wish this side of the aisle, which is always for markets, would help us
better match supply and demand. Here is the demand. Here is the supply.
Now, true, this bill, the base bill, would actually help a little
bit. It still does not meet the demand and the backlog. And even if we
get this amendment, we will not quite match supply and demand. There is
an extraordinary unmet demand out there, demand that flows to those
other 70 percent of the farmers, small farmers, truly small farmers,
who I represent, who are left out of this bill. So we are talking about
hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill; but we are leaving out
millions of farmers, small farms, dairy, small wood-lot, row crops,
fruit and vegetable folks they represent.
So let us put an end to the rhetoric of saying this is not for
farmers, this money will not go to farmers, it will put new controls.
It is a voluntary program, a program that people are lined up to get
into in my State; and the USDA simply says there is not enough money,
come back next year, the year after, or the year after. We need that
funding now. We need these increases. In fact, we need even more than
will be provided under this amendment.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) was correct
when he commented on the fact that the supporters of this amendment do
not come from this industry. I did a quick note. Most are attorneys.
And I do not fault their desire or their ability or their right to be
involved in this issue, but I can tell my colleagues that those who
call themselves environmentalists in this Congress are loving their
land to death.
I represent Montana. It happens to be one of the largest
agricultural-producing States, one of the largest States, and perhaps
one of the ones most screwed up because of many of the conservation
practices that are occurring because of this Congress. Let me point out
to my colleagues what some of this Congress' conservation plans have
done to us.
This is what government farming practices look like. This is a forest
fire. And I will tell my colleagues that underthinned forests kill
forests every bit as much as overlogged forests. Undergrazed grass
kills grass every bit as much as overgrazed grass. So we are going to
exacerbate our problem? Are we going to put more in? Well, then, we
will kill our land with kindness, and I hope we do not do that.
This is what a managed environment looks like, so I am not standing
before my colleagues today and trying to bring up dollars, which it
seems like the majority of the argument has been on dollars in farmers'
pockets. This is my first farm bill, and the way things go around here,
it may be my last. One never knows. But I want to thank the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest),
because if it is my only farm bill that I have an opportunity to speak
on and to be involved in, I am proud to put my name on something that
understands American agriculture.
I came here not anticipating I was going to win every issue. In fact,
I did not. But I voted for this bill. I supported this bill because it
truly understands the needs, the desires, the wants of those of us in
Montana agriculture and American agriculture.
Now, I was not a supporter of increasing additional conservation act
money. I use myself as an example. My place is getting smaller. Just 9
months ago yesterday, I was in the agricultural business. This suit was
not bought with agricultural money, because I did not have it. I do
now, because of this job. But as I tried to expand my business, do my
colleagues know what I could not do? I lost a lot of acreage because of
the estate tax. I can live with that. I can live with that. But at a
time when I should have been getting bigger, I got smaller. And as I
tried to get bigger, my neighbor puts his land in conservation reserve.
I cannot rent land and I cannot buy land. I could not expand my ranch
to pay for my children's shoes, their college education, and my
retirement.
Now, I might seem a little angry because I am a little angry. Because
what I see happening in this Congress is that we are attempting to use
the farmer for an environmental policy in this country, and I believe
that is misguided. We do not want to see more of this. This is a
forest, but it is the same in the pasture land. The conservation
practices that preserve property in this country without active
management in fact are killing our environment.
So it is not about jobs, and it is not about money. It is about our
environment. And what is the best way to manage our environment? This
bill does, in fact, without this amendment, do that. It maintains
maximum planting flexibility, it provides countercyclical protection,
it allows farmers to update their base acreages, it increases
conservation programs, it addresses trade, research, nutrition, and
includes one of my favorite issues, rural development and adding value
to agricultural products. That is how we are going to save the American
farmer. That is how we are going to create a better environment.
Support the bill. Kill the amendment.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that on this
amendment and all amendments thereto the remaining time be 40 minutes,
equally divided between a proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert),
the author of the amendment, will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes
of my time be allocated to the cosponsor of the amendment, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) will control 10 minutes in favor of the amendment,
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) will control the time in
opposition.
There was no objection.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of
the time allocated to the opponents be given to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
We have heard a lot of debate over this amendment in the last few
hours. My colleagues, this is not about rich farmers against poor
farmers. It is not about corporate farmers against noncorporate
farmers. It is not even about conservationists against those who feed
America. Because our farm families, our row croppers were this
country's first conservationists. This is about whether we want this
country to become dependent on other countries for our food and fiber
the way we have for our oil.
[[Page H6317]]
We spent 8 months in the House Committee on Agriculture, where I sit,
writing this farm bill in a bipartisan effort. It is not the bill I
would have written. I am sure the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind)
would have liked to have seen more in it for conservation. I would have
liked to have seen more in it for row crops. But this is a democracy,
and in a democracy and in our committee we compromised. And let us
never forget that that compromise included increasing baseline spending
for conservation by 78 percent.
The 1996 farm bill did not work. If this amendment passes, the 2001
farm bill will not work. Farmers are going broke across the delta,
across the southern half of Arkansas, and across much of America.
Despite the fact that they are able to produce yields that they never
dreamed of just 10 years ago, they cannot control market prices. Market
prices are down.
Now, I am not real good in math, I will confess to that, but it does
not take a rocket scientist to figure it out that if it costs 70 cents
a pound to grow cotton, and the market price is 40 cents a pound, that
farmer has to have some help. My farm families do not want to be
welfare farmers. They do not want to be insurance farmers. But they
need America to be there for them when market prices are down, just as
those farm families have been there doing what they know how to do
best, and that is feed America for many, many generations.
Many are worried about a recession. If this amendment passes, I
believe we will have a serious recession, not only with our farm
families but many of the smaller banks located in the delta. This
amendment will directly take, next year alone, $183.7 million out of
the pockets of our farm families in Arkansas.
Finally, let me say this. We all want to try and represent our
districts. I truly respect the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for
trying to represent the people of his district. I am trying to
represent the people of mine so they can continue to feed America.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this really
misguided amendment.
The Boehlert/Kind Amendment takes over $9 billion out of the farm
program (and rural economies) in the first three years and only
gradually makes available more conservation funds with heavy strings
attached. This is not what farmers or rural America needs when it is
currently reeling from 4 years of incredibly depressed prices.
This amendment replaces the counter-cyclical components of the farm
bill which is designed to avoid costly ad hoc programs, with statutory
maximum payments which decline each year to $1.6 billion in the last
year. If prices fall again in the future, the farm program could not
respond under this amendment leaving Congress with the choice of
another farm bailout. The 2 years invested in writing a farm bill that
will respond to market conditions would be wrecked.
This amendment cuts program benefits to real farmers. They say their
cut comes from the top 10% of recipients in each region of the country,
but that top 10% consists of 100% producers.
In closing, this amendment pits farmer against farmer. In the most
ludicrous, but very real case, a farmer with 400 acres would have their
payment cut by 66%. But the producer with 399 acres would receive every
bit of their payment. Remember, this is the farm bill, not the
environmental bill.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), whose State will be one of the many
beneficiaries of all 50 States under the conservation amendment offered
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and me.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. If I were not such a civilized soul, I
would have objected to this agreement. I have been in and out of this
Chamber all afternoon waiting a chance to speak and I have 5 minutes'
worth to say. Now I have my 2 minutes to say it in.
I just want all of my colleagues to know that the Committee on
Agriculture did not hold a single hearing in New England; that its
membership does not include any of us; that my friend, the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Moran), could have made exactly the speech he made
word for word and had the final sentence say, and that is why I support
the amendment.
{time} 1600
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues do not understand. Members want a farm
subsidy program for their farmers. Members want it to be
countercyclical. The compact is countercyclical, and it does control
production, and get Members will not even give us a chance to do for
our farmers what they so desperately want to do for their farmers.
My colleagues increase the conservation money. I am glad this bill
does that, but it will take $60 million of EQIP money to help my
farmers, just the ones that have projects lined up, because we are the
first State that is going to comply with those AFO/CAFO regulations
that were put into place in this House to address nonpoint source
pollution. It has to be done but it's very costly.
Though my small farmers have no margin. It will cost a million
dollars a farm for the ten biggest farms in Connecticut and sizable
dollars for every farm. Where are they going to get it? So increasing
the funding for EQIP, I appreciate that, but it is not enough for even
Connecticut. Doubling the money for WHIP from $25 million to $50
million helps but currently 12 of our landowners are served. There are
46 applicants unserved right now.
My colleagues have got to pay more attention to New England and parts
of the country where we have small farms where people are spending full
time farming. These are not hobby operations. These are farmers who
want their kids to take over their farms.
And they are creative entrepreneurs. For example, we have the most
progressive manure management program in the Nation, and the
agricultural research funds will not allow us any money because it is
an integrated system, and all of our research monies are in silos. Old-
fashioned.
Mr. Chairman, it pains me as a Republican that my party cannot even
hear New England farmers. I am going to support this amendment because
it is the only way I can help the people who depend on land for their
living.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this amendment. It seems what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have done is bring our
entire House together. Everybody today is in support of agriculture,
and I say hallelujah. But do not think for a moment that one bill
addresses all of the agriculture in the country. I happen to represent
the most productive agricultural county in the United States. This bill
does little to help it.
Monterey County grows 85 crops. No other county in the United States
grows 85 crops, and it is a $3 billion industry. What is the one thing
they need? It is to preserve the land. All of this debate has been on
the side of let us preserve the commodity bank account versus preserve
the land. We are not going to have any agriculture without land.
Mr. Chairman, let us support this amendment. I used to be an
authorizer, and I am an appropriator now. Guess what the appropriators
lack? It is authorization to put the money where people want it. This
amendment raises that authorization. It allows the appropriators to
meet the demand we are talking about to help preserve Ag land.
In California alone, we have farmers who are offering to sell their
development rights so that the land will not be urbanized, so it will
not be lost to agriculture. That queue is $47 million today. The bill
only authorizes $50 million. Just California could use that entire
authorization in our one State.
If my colleagues look at it nationally, farmers on the urban fringe
face a $280 million backlog. Even the amendment will not bring us up to
the level of demand. If Members want to preserve agriculture, preserve
the land that agriculture is grown on, support this amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
[[Page H6318]]
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's
compliment in calling Members like me a farmer because I have 60 acres
and happen to live on the farm. But if Members look at the book that
the USDA put out on food and agriculture policy, they note that this
farmer group that we have been hearing the proponents of the Kind
amendment talk about, represent that 62 percent of the farmers are
rural residential farmers that, quote, ``view farming as an investment
opportunity and a way to enjoy rural amenities'' they describe that
they have little dependence on the farm economy for their income, and
that they typically have incomes comparable to those of nonfarm
households.
These are the farmers that we are supposedly neglecting in this
amendment. We have to focus on the farm bill in the farm bill. I am
pleased with the way the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have come up with a bill that
addresses the needs of farmers.
We have a better safety net for our farmers. There is an 80 percent
increase in conservation funding. I am an ardent supporter of
conservation programs and have worked on behalf of conservation; and
absent the constraints that budgets or public policy would allow, this
would be a good amendment. But in this amendment we are pitting farmer
against conservationist, and that is not the way to do it.
We already have a significant increase in the programs that will
allow the backlog that has been talked about to be taken care of. I,
like many in my district, understand the importance of a strong
agricultural economy. We need to have a balanced approach. This bill is
a balanced approach.
This amendment would gut the farm program. It would make us have to
go back to supplemental assistance every year and be damaging to the
budget. We need to create a bill that is based on the consensus that
has been developed over the last 2 years. Let us remember to keep
farmers in the farm bill. Do not vote for this amendment. Vote for
farmers and oppose the Kind amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert-Kind
amendment, but also to express my concern about the underlying bill.
I was here on the floor in 1995 when we adopted the Freedom to Farm
Act, and I thought it was a step in the right direction. This bill
codifies a direction that we should not be going. The payments in here
are for countercyclical commodity farmers, but it is $40 billion over
10 years. It goes a long way to reducing the farmer's market risk, and
encourages farmers to grow without regard to market forces.
What I am concerned about and want to express my concern about is
what it does fundamentally to put us at risk with our international
trade policy.
It is a clear step backwards for U.S. trade when it comes to
agriculture. It would increase farmer dependency on Uncle Sam; thus, it
sends a signal to U.S. trading partners and developing worlds that we
are not serious about our success in another round of global trade
negotiations where we are arguing that we should get access to their
markets with our commodities.
The new language that would give authority to the Secretary of
Agriculture to shift spending if U.S. subsidy commitments are exceeded,
that is only an effort to abdicate political responsibility for what
ought to be good policy in the first place.
I think the Boehlert-Kind amendment at least moves us from spending
more in what is called the ``amber box'' programs, those are programs
that are trade distorting, to programs that are considered nontrade
distorting, or ``the green box.'' It moves spending from those trade
distorting programs into the conservation programs, and they are
considered nondistorting; and, therefore, consistent with the trade
agreements the Congress and the President have approved.
In the development of farm policy, we have to lead by example.
Passing this amendment will help remedy components of a fundamentally
flawed bill, but we should recognize that it does not completely
reverse the direction in U.S. trade policy that this legislation would
have us take.
I find some reassurance in the President's statement of
administration policy. The Congress and the President should have the
ability to help U.S. farmers, and I support the amendment and have
expressed my concerns about the underlying bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, they say a picture is worth a thousand
words. We have talked a lot about this farm bill and how much it
increases conservation programs.
This was the 1996 farm bill. This was seen by many, and stated by
many of the environmental groups today supporting this amendment, as
the greenest farm bill that had ever been written. That was 1996.
Look what we do with conservation programs in this bill. They are
increased substantially. If Members look at the individual programs and
how much they go up compared to nonpassage of this bill, it is a
substantial increase in environmental programs.
Ducks Unlimited have said they do not support this bill because it
does not do enough to preserve wetlands. Look at what has happened in
wetlands over previous years. This is how much we were losing from 1954
to 1974. Today it is down to this. Look how much of it is lost because
of agriculture, the top part, and how much is lost in urban areas. It
is primarily the urban areas.
This amendment has problems that are unintended. When you idle
farmland, it not only affects the farmer, it affects every community
that depends on that farm. This year, in Idaho we idled 150,000 acres
due to a power buyback because of the energy crisis. I can tell my
colleagues that businesses in every small community that depend on
agriculture have seen their businesses decline. Some of them by as much
as 50 percent, and that is exactly what will happen when we take land
out and set it aside and do not produce on it.
We need to make sure that those businesses stay in business and that
they are doing the job that they can for their communities.
Some people are concerned about the fiscal impact of this
legislation. Our hope is that farmers do not have to rely on government
for payments, that commodity prices cover the cost of raising their
crops. And if commodity prices go up, we will spend less under the
underlying bill than we have said it will cost.
But with the Kind amendment when Congress puts that money into the
environmental programs, it will be spent regardless of what the
commodity prices are. That money will be spent, and it will go on
forever because once we start those programs, we are never going to
stop them, once we increase that acreage as much as my colleagues want
to.
We all are concerned about the environment. We are doing in this bill
a great deal to improve the environment. Much has been said today about
the statement of administration policy or SAP, as it is appropriately
called. I want to say this bluntly. I am sorry I have to say it, but we
are right and they are wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that once the administration has an opportunity
to study this bill and to study farm policy the way that this Committee
on Agriculture has for the last 2.5 years and how we can improve the
environment and how we can improve the commodity prices for our
producers, they will come on board with our bill and see that it
accomplishes the goals that they have set forward. I urge my colleagues
to defeat the Kind amendment and pass the underlying bill.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, family farmers are hard working and
disciplined; but I want to point out that there are some other groups
of people who provide us nourishment, and one is the family fisherman
and fisherwoman.
I know a guy named Rudy who used to run a boat called the Shirley
Anne when there were abundant salmon stocks in the State of Washington.
His family does not fish any more because the salmon are gone,
destroyed, caput, because we have silted up the rivers and destroyed a
great natural resource.
[[Page H6319]]
What this amendment will do and why I am supporting it in part is it
will expand the number of farmers and crops who can use this money to
help other people who provide food, namely fishermen and fisherwomen. I
do not think that is too much to ask.
We are taking only 3 percent of the people who benefit from this, and
we are spreading it around to every farmer in the country and saying if
they want to help, they are going to have this money simply for
conservation.
Let me point out also, this is not a question of taking money away
from farmers. It is only a question of what they will do in return for
the money. All this amendment suggests is instead of asking them to
grow corn, help us grow some fish because it is not corn that is on the
Endangered Species Act, it is fish. We are asking farmers who want to
help to be allowed to help in that regard.
I want to quote the President of the United States, who has been
doing a good job for us lately. His administration policy statement
says, ``While overall farm income is strengthened, there is no question
that some of our Nation's producers are in serious financial straits,
especially smaller farmers and ranchers. Rather than address these
unmet needs, H.R. 2646 would continue to direct the greatest share of
resources to those least in need of government assistance. Nearly half
of all recent government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of
farms, usually very large producers, while more than half of all U.S.
farmers share in only 13 percent of the payments.''
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2646 would only increase this disparity.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
{time} 1615
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this
amendment. This amendment is not in the best interests of farmers and
ranchers in the State of Missouri nor anywhere else in the Nation.
This amendment diverts money out of the hands of working farmers.
Throughout this debate, I have heard my colleagues discuss the current
farm crisis, the low commodity prices, the struggling family farm
operations. I know all too well just how hard it is to stay in
production agriculture today. I am a farmer.
I want to remind my colleagues that the legislation we are debating
today will guide the agriculture industry for the next 10 years. I
believe that farmers in my district would agree that the base bill is a
very good bill. It provides the stability that producers need to stay
in business while dramatically increasing funding for conservation
incentive programs. This amendment that we are talking about disrupts
the balance that that base bill tries to strike.
This amendment diverts $15 billion from the farm safety net, hitting
those farmers who are hurting the worst the hardest. Furthermore, this
diversion of funds from the financial safeguard would be used to expand
Federal control and ownership of private lands. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment takes lands permanently out of production by devoting
billions of dollars to land retirement. This amendment retires
productive farmland. Taking land out of production does not ensure the
continuation of a safe, affordable, domestic source of food and fiber
for our country. In this time of international uncertainty, we do not
want to tie the hands of the world's most productive farmers.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in strong support of this
amendment. The underlying bill fails to provide adequate help to small
farmers and once again disproportionately benefits the larger commodity
producing farms.
The fact of the matter is that this bill does not truly reform the
current failures of our Nation's farm policy. I agree with the Bush
administration's statement of administration policy on the bill which
states, ``The Nation's farm sector has changed significantly due to new
technologies, globalization, and environmental concerns, and this bill
does not reflect those changes.''
The Kind-Gilchrest-Boehlert amendment will help balance this bill's
lopsided payment structure by making more conservation funds available
to small family farmers. Due to the dramatic increase in commodity
payments, only 5 percent of the USDA's funding has gone towards
conservation programs. Rural housing programs have also been squeezed.
Numerous Delaware farmers and growers who do not grow commodity crops
have applied for conservation funding to improve our State's water
quality, contain nutrient pollution, combat sprawl and assist in
wildlife protection. Unfortunately, applicants are being turned away
left and right because of a lack of funding for vital conservation
programs. Delaware has an almost $10 million backlog in conservation
assistance applications. Federal conservation programs have greatly
assisted Delaware in its longtime efforts to conserve farmland, protect
the environment and improve water quality.
I believe that the bill also will not solve the long-term problem.
Due to large agriculture subsidies abroad, particularly Europe, some
level of American subsidies for farmers is required. Indeed, even if
this amendment passes today, Mr. Chairman, the Nation's commodity
farmers who benefit the most from our government subsidies will still
receive an 11 percent increase in their annual payments.
I want to highlight a quote from the administration's statement of
policy which states, ``H.R. 2646 would depart from this pro-trade
direction by significantly increasing domestic subsidies to levels that
would undermine our negotiating position in the next round of World
Trade Organization negotiations. This bill would likely induce other
countries to raise barriers to our products.''
I will not support a bill that harms our ability to open foreign
markets to U.S. products. I encourage everyone here to support the
amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo).
Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have to be honest with ourselves. The reason
that we have a Federal agriculture policy at all is to provide a
dependable, abundant supply of cheap food for the American people. That
is why we do this.
I think that if you look at this amendment and what the impact of the
underlying policy goal of Federal ag policy, what the impact would be
on that, you have to go to the very source. They take millions of acres
of land out of production. Now, some people may like that. Some people
may not. But the truth is, is that it puts us in the position of
providing less food and fiber for the consumption of the American
people, because you are taking millions of acres of land out of
production.
I heard earlier in the debate somebody said that we want to give more
money to our family farmers, that we want more money for them. And
somehow, in the twisted logic, they think that putting them out of
business gets more money to them. It does not work that way. We also
heard on the debate on dairy earlier about how much people cared about
their small dairy farmers. What do you think your small dairy farmers
are going to think when their grain prices double or triple or more,
because the guys who were producing their grain now put their land in
CRP or put their land in wetlands reserve or put their land in one of
these biological corridor things that you guys are cooking up in this?
The impact on the dairy farmers is going to be immense. Now, you want
to take care of that. You put rotational grazing in there. Just on the
back of an envelope trying to figure this out, I figure it is going to
take 200 to 300 million acres of land in this country to do rotational
grazing with the current dairy stock that we have; 200 to 300 million
acres. But we are not going to have that because we are taking it out
of production.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I am in full support of the Boehlert-Kind-
[[Page H6320]]
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment. This amendment will increase funding for
conservation programs and give farmers and ranchers the ability to
solve water quality problems, to improve the health of the land and to
protect wildlife. Conservation programs preserve land by encouraging
farmers not to farm on highly erodible lands, provide assistance in
controlling polluted water runoff and encourages preservation of
wetlands.
This amendment successfully addresses the concerns of 70 percent of
all farmers who produce at least 80 percent of all agricultural
products by increasing conservation programs accessible to all kinds of
farming.
This amendment does not take money away from the agriculture
community. It will simply shift $1.9 billion a year away from commodity
programs to conservation programs, which will subsequently reach more
regions of the country.
This amendment also extends the wetlands reserve program. This
program continues to be popular in my area of the country in New
Jersey, and I am equally pleased to acknowledge the benefits that this
amendment will provide to States along the Mississippi River as well as
the West and in Florida. I would even like to see us go further, but I
will ask that we fully support this amendment and urge my colleagues to
vote for it.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. A lot has
been made about the fact that this amendment would take land out of
production. Unfortunately, it is a reality in my State of New Hampshire
that farms are really not economic. I would only draw to your attention
a farm like Sunny Crest Farm in Concord, New Hampshire, which has
benefited from the farmland protection program and can now produce
apples for the foreseeable future instead of houses. These programs are
critical to the maintenance of a very sad farming situation in the
Northeast. I hope that the Congress will adopt this important
amendment.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kind
amendment and want to comment about the comments that have been made
regarding trade distortion that would come out of this farm bill, the
underlying farm bill, that I think has been crafted so well by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) and the Committee on Agriculture.
One of the problems with the freedom to farm implementation has not
been the freedom to farm concept, but the implementation of it. The
Congress has failed until just last year to open markets to our farmers
so they could have markets around the world that they could compete in.
And so it is improper to say that this is somehow trade distorting,
when in fact, farmers have been begging over the years to have access
to markets that have been closed to them and that food has been used as
a weapon in foreign policy.
What we need certainly is trade promotion authority for this
President to go negotiate our agreements with other countries to lower
their tariff barriers so that we can have access to their markets, our
farmers can.
This amendment, with all due respect to the sponsors and the
supporters, would take land out of production. And when it takes land
out of production, we jeopardize the food safety and security of our
country. If you do not have farmers farming, you are not going to have
food produced domestically which we may need in years ahead just as we
need it today.
It also has a negative impact. As you put money and land into
conservation programs, like CRP and wetlands reserve, you take it out
of production. The production agriculture does not then help rural
communities, such as the implement store or the seed guy or the food
store in rural communities. We are seeing our rural communities in
jeopardy around this country. So production agriculture is promoted and
assisted in the underlying bill. That is why we must support this bill
and reject the amendment.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen), another distinguished member of the Committee
on Agriculture.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
this amendment. There are three issues that are really driving my
support for this amendment. One is the ag economy in my district is in
as much desperation as any other district in this country. Second, one
of the issues affecting my farmers is suburban encroachment. They need
help to continue farming. The third is the listing on the Endangered
Species Act of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon, which is wreaking havoc
for my family farms.
Having a strong conservation title is important. When I went around
my district in April, my farmers asked for three things in a farm bill,
a strong trade title, strong research and a strong conservation title.
I have learned a lot from the farmers in my district. I have also
learned a lot from two people on the committee, the chairman and the
ranking member. I want to thank them for the hard work that they have
put in to getting the farm bill as far as it has gone. But for my
farmers in my district, having a strong conservation title is
critically important, which is why I stand today in support of the Kind
amendment.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I represent an area that should be the target
population for this amendment, a State that does not benefit from the
traditional commodities programs, a State that has a tremendous
agricultural base, a lot of family farms. But contrary to what the
propaganda has been that has been put out there, this bill gives the
perception that the money is going to States like Florida, like fruit
and vegetable producing States that do not have the grains, but it
takes it away with these size limitations.
Forty percent of the dairy farms in Florida would not qualify for any
of the benefits placed under the Kind amendment. Ninety percent of the
poultry farms would not qualify as put out by our Commissioner of
Agriculture in a letter to the delegation this morning.
It is time for some of those environmental groups and sportsmen's
groups to pull off the interstate, step out of the Range Rover, get
your feet dirty and see what farmers need. Farmers need the ability to
continue to produce food and fiber for this Nation. Farmers need the
ability to stay in business, with working lands, with productive lands,
with assistance to do what they want to do, to raise crops, to grow
livestock, not to raise government payments, not to harvest checks from
the mailbox, not to be a part of an environmental movement.
If the farm organizations were going to benefit from this program,
then how come none of them support this amendment? Do not scratch our
ear and walk us to the kill floor. This amendment is bad for farmers.
It is bad for agriculture. It is time that we step back and support the
original bill that bumps up conservation support, encourages good
stewardship of the land and reinforces private property rights and
entrepreneurial spirit in the United States and in the agricultural
economy.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-
Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment that will strengthen our existing
conservation programs. The amendment embodies many of the important
provisions that encourage all agricultural developers to participate in
Federal conservation programs. It will help farmers and ranchers
improve water quality, protect farmland from urban sprawl, preserve
critical wildlife habitat, as well as provide farmers with technical
assistance to implement such conservation measures.
{time} 1630
The amendment also provides additional funding for small farmers and
ranchers to participate in conservation programs. They have in the past
been deterred from participating in those programs because of funding
shortages.
[[Page H6321]]
The amendment provides $1.9 billion above the current amount included
in H.R. 2646 for conservation programs. This additional funding for
maintaining and expanding the programs does not increase the cost of
the farm bill. The amendment simply shifts funds from commodity
programs to conservation programs that reach more farmers in more areas
of the country. In addition, the amendment does not reduce the amount
of funding commodity programs receive. These programs would still
receive funding above the average level of the last 10 years.
Maryland conservation efforts will benefit from this increased
conservation funding, as will those from other States. The funding for
the Conservation Reserve Program, especially for grass and tree buffers
near water bodies, would help reduce agricultural pollutants in many
Maryland watersheds. In addition, suburban sprawl is swallowing many
parts of Maryland. Without some farmland and protection money to pay
farmers for the development rights, even more farmland would be lost.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge all Members to vote in favor of this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The Chair would announce that
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining
and will be first to close; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has
2 minutes remaining and will be second to close; the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert) has 2 minutes remaining and will be third to close;
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) or the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), as the case may be, has 2 minutes remaining and
will close.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I was on a hike one day in the northern part of my
district, crossing it with my wife, and we ran across this farmer who
was working in his fields. He came out to greet us. He had an orange
that he took out of his knapsack and started to peel it and stopped,
and he held it in his hand and he said to me, ``Look at this.'' I
looked. And he said, ``See my thumbnail around this orange?'' I said
``Yes.'' He said, ``That is what we have left of prime agricultural
land on the planet Earth.''
We are losing 68 square miles of prime agricultural land in the State
of Michigan every year. That is comparable to the size of two
townships.
Our current backlog request for conservation measures is $45 million.
Approximately 88,000 square miles of Great Lakes Basin are devoted to
agriculture; yet we lose 63 million tons of top soil from farmland
basins each year in our State.
We have got a huge problem with unchecked combined animal feeding
operations in the southwest part of our State, raising serious
environmental problems. If you do not believe that, ask the people in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where 104 people died of cryptosporidium that was
thought to be caused by animal waste.
Above all, we need to remember that our farmers play a crucial role
in preserving our environment, and we should never forget that they are
truly the stewards of our land. This amendment does that. It takes care
of our land.
The amendment will provide a 63 percent increase in conservation
dollars for Michigan farmers. It will increase funding for farmland
protection programs so that family farmers can stay in business,
despite threats of sprawl and over development.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it makes a long-term
investment in the rural heritage of our country.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kind amendment.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the chairman and ranking
member and my other colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture for the
obvious hard work all of us have put in in trying to craft the next
farm bill. This is not easy stuff.
I want to commend my colleagues for the spirited debate we had on the
floor today. This is what democracy is all about. It is being able to
raise varying issues, have a discussion about them, and then ultimately
a vote. But, again, let me just emphasize a couple of key points in
this.
The current commodity subsidy recipients now are going to be getting
double the amount of subsidy payments, even under our own amendment
under this new farm bill, so it is not like they are going to be
experiencing a net loss or we are taking something away. We are only
saying that perhaps a little bit of the huge increase that they are
going to be getting could be shifted into these voluntary conservation
programs so all farmers in all regions will be able to benefit.
There are some who have claimed that we need to send the money to
those who are producing the food in the country. I agree. But let us
also remember, 70 percent of the farmers in this country are not
receiving any commodity subsidies at all; yet those 70 percent of
farmers are producing 80 percent of the food market value in this
country. I think the time has come to include them into the farm bill
and the benefits of the farm bill in a fair and more equitable fashion
with the societal benefits that our amendment would also bring.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, it is not by accident that this Nation has the most
abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply,
at the lowest cost to our people of any country in the world. It is
because our agricultural policy has been balanced.
This bill today is more than just commodities and conservation. It is
also forestry, trade, research, nutrition, rural development, and
credit.
The Committee on Agriculture had a difficult time. We had to fit it
within a $73.5 billion budget. Therefore, we had to make tough choices,
and that is what we did.
To those who support the amendment today, who I most ardently oppose,
let me point out to our colleagues, we are spending on the same
programs; it is just the amount of money that you are wanting to spend.
The backlog that everybody has talked about, 561,000 acres in the
wetlands reserve, we provide in our $1.5 billion, three times the
backlog. In the environmental quality program that the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) spoke about a moment ago, we put $800
million more into it than the amendment. In the wildlife habitat, 3,017
applicants for $19 million, we put $385 million. Farmland protection,
the backlog, $281 million, we put $500 million.
We meet the needs of the environmental community. This is the
greenest farm bill that has ever passed this Congress, and I support it
enthusiastically. I oppose the amendment. The amendment will do drastic
harm to all of the causes that those who support the amendment profess
to believe that they will help.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan and geographically dispersed sponsors of
my amendment and the administration looked at the base bill and drew
the same conclusions.
Let me read from the statement of administration policy: ``The
administration believes it is possible to craft a policy that is better
for rural America, better for the environment and better for expanding
markets for our producers than H.R. 2646.'' We agree. That is why we
have sponsored this amendment.
The administration says: ``H.R. 2646 misses the opportunity to
modernize the Nation's farm programs through market-oriented tools,
innovative environmental programs, including extending benefits to
working lands and aid programs that are consistent with our trade
agenda.'' We agree. That is why we sponsored this amendment.
The administration notes that the base bill fails to help farmers
most in need, those in serious financial straits, especially smaller
farmers and ranchers. We agree. That is why we support this amendment.
The administration observes that nearly half of all recent government
payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, usually very
large producers, while more than half of all
[[Page H6322]]
U.S. farmers share in only 13 percent of the payments. H.R. 2646 would
only increase this disparity. We agree. That is why we support this
amendment.
The farmers who do not receive commodity payments, 70 percent of all
farmers produce 80 percent of the value of all agricultural products.
If you want to help farmers, if you want clean water, if you want open
space, vote for our amendment.
Let me observe, we have heard all day that the bill already increases
conservation funding, and it does. But it puts that increase almost
exclusively in one program, then it changes the rules to target the
program to the largest farmers in the fewest number of States.
I say vote for the Boehlert-Gilchrest-Kind-Dingell amendment. Support
America's farmers. Take care of the little guy. I urge passage of the
amendment.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
First of all, I would like to take note that the administration does
not endorse this amendment. Nowhere do I see the administration
endorsing the Kind amendment. Furthermore, when the question comes to
the big picture of agriculture, perhaps some of the bureaucrats within
the administration do not fully appreciate everything that we see going
on. So they may be wrong in their general statement about it.
But let us remember this: we have passed comprehensive farm bills
since 1933, and the goal of every farm bill is ultimately to provide a
safe supply of food and fiber to dress and feed this great Nation. And
we have succeeded so well; we have never known a famine in this country
in the history of Federal farm policy. That is nothing short of
incredible.
Now, the question about backlogs and the needs out there for
conservation, we had hearings at full committee, we had hearings at
subcommittee. We listened to 23 groups. We listened to everybody who
had an interest in this issue, and we addressed every one of their
needs.
In the first year of funding in this bill, whether it is EQIP or
farmland or every other provision of conservation, we address the
needs. We wipe out the backlog, and we go farther. We go farther; $37
billion to be spent on conservation over the next 10 years. It is
amazing.
If you had said 10 years ago we could do that, people would have
thought you were crazed. If you said 30 years ago we could do that,
they would have even been even more amazed.
We have risen to the occasion on the committee, we have addressed all
of the needs out there, and we have done it within the resource
allocation given to us by the Committee on the Budget.
Yes, we still take care of production agriculture. You will still be
able to eat; you will still be able to dress in this country, thanks to
the American farmer and rancher. We owe them this.
And, oh, yes, do not forget those conservation programs are cost-
share, so when that farmer and rancher is doing things to preserve the
soil and water, the wildlife, he is putting down a big chunk of his or
her own money. There is nothing free about this.
American farmers and ranchers are the ultimate stewards of the soil,
of water, of the wildlife, of the environment, the ultimate stewards;
and in this bill we help them become even better stewards, using their
resources and some Federal resources together.
Mr. Chairman, let us defeat this amendment, let us pass this bill,
let us get on with the agenda of the future of production of
agriculture and the environment in this country, and start our hearings
on the next bill.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by my colleague from New York, Mr. Boehlert.
I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from New
York, Mr. Boehlert.
This proposal significantly increases the investment in an array of
important programs which are critical to conservation efforts in my
state of New York and in other states across the country: the EQIP
program, the Farmland Protection Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program,
the Conservation Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program.
This amendment will help us reach more farmers in more parts of the
country. And will assist these farmers in their efforts to protect and
restore the health of their land and the livability of their
communities.
So I thank my colleagues--Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Kind, Mr. Gilchrest, and
Mr. Dingell--for their work on this proposal, and offer my strong
support for this amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support to the Boehlert-Kind-
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment. It puts added emphasis on conservation
programs, and offers more resources based on conservation to all
farmers, rather than a limited group.
There is nothing more precious than our land. Without it, we cannot
sustain life. Without appropriate measures of assistance, too many
producers of row crops, as well as fruits, vegetables and livestock--
all find themselves without the ability to undertake the full degree of
conservation practices necessary.
At the same time, one of the most significant issues facing our
communities is urban sprawl. Across the Nation more than 90 million
acres of farmland are threatened by sprawl, and we lose more than 2
million acres every year to development. Unplanned and inefficient
development is consuming land at twice the rate of population growth.
The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment provides funding for
conservation programs that can help alleviate the consumption of
valuable, productive agricultural lands. While putting greater emphasis
on conservation.
Why should funding be increased for conservation programs that
protect farmland from development?
Sprawl cost taxpayers more dollars for new infrastructure. Farmland
or open space generates only 38 cents in costs for each dollar in taxes
paid, whereas residential development requires $1.24 in public
expenditures for every dollar it generates in tax revenues.
Farms located near urban centers serve as the primary source of
fresh, locally grown food. Seventy-nine percent of our fruit, sixty-
nine percent of our vegetables, and fifty-two percent of our dairy
goods are produced on high quality farmland that is threatened by urban
growth. One-third of America's agricultural production occurs on farms
near cities. America cannot afford to squander this resource.
Cities and towns can save billions of dollars in municipal water
treatment costs. Protecting wetlands and streams prevents costs of
water treatment systems downstream.
We know that there is great concern on the part of the Agriculture
Committee about the offsets provided by this amendment. The sponsors of
the amendment have attempted to target these reductions in a fashion to
minimize the impact on over 90 percent of all producers receiving
payments.
But keep certain facts in mind. First, even though the last Farm Bill
was for seven years, it did not go untouched during its life. If anyone
of us here today truly believes that this is the last time we will
visit the farm bill until 2011, you have far greater faith than I.
There always remains room for improvement.
Second, the emergency programs that we have seen in recent years did
not treat producers fairly. Many growers in my district told me how
unfair they thought they were, and this included some of the growers
receiving the benefits. Even though the bill before us today suggest
that it will avoid the problems of emergency bills, it still fails to
correct many of the imbalances that exist in the current program, and
it fails to provide a broad range safety net for other producers. Where
is the Freedom to Farm in protection for some commodities but not for
others?
We are at a stage where we need a broad recasting of our farm policy.
We need programs that promote conservation. We need to provide support
for alternative products like biofuels. We need new thinking, higher
value added not old hat solutions.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell
amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-Kind-
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment.
This amendment to the farm bill will help farmers help the
environment by providing funding for vitally important conservation
efforts. These include: the Conservation Reserve Programs; restoration
of 250,000 acres of wetlands; increased funding for Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program; and the creation of a 3-million-acre grassland
reserve.
According to the Kansas City Star and in a recent poll, 75 percent of
Americans want conservation to be included in any farm package
established by the U.S. Government.
The farm bill, in its current form, excludes equitable relief for 60
percent of farmers. These farmers currently do not receive any benefits
from the traditional commodity support programs. This amendment
redistributes money more widely and equitable to producers and also
improves the environment.
This bill would also save billions of dollars in municipal water
treatment costs and would reduce erosion and sediment in the water by
providing natural buffers along rivers and streams.
In the past, the U.S. Department of Agriculture opposed small
farmers', ranchers', and
[[Page H6323]]
forest landowners' requests for assistance in order to restore lost
habitat. Also, according to the Bush administration, payments have gone
to the largest 8 percent of farms, while more than half of all U.S.
farmers share only 13 percent of the payments.
As we establish a legislative framework to assist with land
cultivation, we must also invest in sound environmental policies and
practices.
The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is supported by
numerous organizations including: the League of Conservation Voters,
the Water Environment Federation, the National Association of Water
Companies, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Ducks Unlimited, Trout
Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League, and Defenders of the Wildlife.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' for the Boehlert-
Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank the gentlemen from Texas, Chairman Combest and Charlie Stenholm,
not only their hard work in crafting this farm bill, but also for the
way in which they worked with members from all areas of the country to
make sure we had the best bill that could have been drafted under the
tough circumstances we faced.
This bill will go a long way to help many of the producers that I
represent in southeastern North Carolina, and believe me: the timing
could not have come sooner. The agriculture sector is struggling in
America, and farmers need our help. This bill provides an additional
$73.5 billion for agriculture and our rural communities during a time
they need it most.
However, I would like to mention one area that could have used
additional funding. For the past 6 years, peanut producers have been
operating under a price support system that guaranteed $610 per ton of
peanuts. During this time, the farmers' input costs, such as fuel and
fertilizer, have also steadily increased, squeezing already thin profit
margins. This bill changes the current program, and I fear North
Carolina peanut producers will earn even less, only exacerbating farm
sales in my area. Therefore, as this bill moves forward, I hope
additional funds will be found for peanut producers.
Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill overall; I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this bipartisan
amendment because it will help farmers and ranchers to be even better
stewards of their lands.
Farmers provide the backbone of America by putting food on our
tables. But agriculture is a hard business.
Food prices fluctuate for a number of reasons, which in turn can
affect the demand and price for certain crops. Poor crop prices hit
farmers were it hurts the most--the pocketbook. When a farmer is having
trouble taking care of his or her own family, taking care of the land
can become a less important priority.
But we can change that with this amendment, which will put a new and
greater emphasis on successful conservation programs.
The Wetland Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,
Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, and the Conservation Reserve
Program are just a few of the programs that are the focus of the
amendment.
These programs give incentives to farmers to restore wetlands,
improve natural habitats for endangered species and hold the line
against urban sprawl by preserving open space.
Farmers and ranchers want to participate in these programs.
Unfortunately, many cannot. These programs have not had the resources
to allow everyone who qualifies to take part. This amendment will go
far to remedy that situation.
This farm bill will leave a lasting mark and provide the direction
for American farm policy for the next 10 years. So, it is important
that we make it as good as we can. Passing this amendment will be a
big, important step in that direction.
I urge adoption of the amendment. If we do we will strengthen our
family farms while making conservation an even bigger part of the
foundation of our farm policy.
For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like attach an editorial
that was printed in the Denver Post that helps illustrate why we need
to pass this important amendment.
Aid Farmers and Environment
Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal tried to
stabilize farm prices during the Great Depression, laws
passed by Congress have waged a losing fight against the laws
of economics.
This year, four U.S. representatives--Sherwood Boehlert, R-
N.Y.; Ron Kind, D-Wis.; Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md.; and John
Dingell, D-Mich.--are trying to introduce a note of realism
into U.S. farm policy by amending key parts of their Working
Lands Stewardship Act, HR 2375, into the latest farm bill.
To understand why the new approach is promising requires a
quick look at why the old one failed. Low farm prices are
caused by an oversupply of farm commodities. Seven decades of
subsidies haven't cured that problem because--by definition--
subsidies encourage more production of the very commodities
that are already in oversupply.
To be sure, for more than 60 years, the U.S. imposed half-
hearted restrictions on production of subsidized crops. But a
farmer who planted 100 acres of wheat and later received a
90-acre allotment invariably tore up his or her least
productive land. Then, that supposedly ``idled'' land would
be sown with millet, barley or some other unsubsidized crop--
as allowed by the subsidy law--and thus go on contributing to
the overall surplus of feed grains.
The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act separated subsidies from
production and supposedly intended to phase out subsidies
entirely in seven years. But the Asian currency collapse
ruined U.S. export markets, farm prices plunged and Congress
hurriedly renewed the counterproductive policy of subsidizing
overproduction.
The Boehlert amendment is designed to help farmers and the
environment alike by diverting $5.4 billion per year from
subsidies to conservation. Instead of merely diverting
acreage from one crop to another as the discredited allotment
system did, the Boehlert amendment pays farmers to put more
land into conservation programs, including:
The Environmental Quality Incentives program, which helps
farmers and ranchers preserve watersheds.
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, which helps
landowners enhance wildlife habitat.
The Wetlands Reserve Program, which protects, preserves and
restores wetlands on marginal soils.
The Grassland Reserve Program, which authorizes
preservation of 3 million acres of fragile grasslands that
should not be plowed.
The Conservation Reserve Program, a long-term cropland
retirement program that enables producers to convert highly
erodible or environmentally sensitive cropland to cover
crops.
The environmental benefits of such programs are obvious.
The benefit for the farmers who receive such payments is
equally clear. But even farmers who don't participate in such
programs also benefit indirectly--because taking
environmentally fragile farmland out of production also
reduces the surpluses that keep farm commodity prices at
ruinous levels.
For nearly seven decades, Congress fought the law of supply
and demand--and the law of supply and demand won. It's high
time to stop subsidizing the very overproduction that causes
the need for subsidies in the first place.
We urge all members of Colorado's congressional delegation
to support the Boehlert amendment.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of the Working Lands
Stewardship Act, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-Kind-
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment to H.R. 2646.
Like the Working Lands Stewardship Act, this amendment will
substantially increase resources for farm conservation. American
farmers are the most productive in the world and are responsible for
the largest export sector in our economy. Yet our farmers are also
sensitive to the environment on which they depend for their
livelihoods. The competition for federal farm conservation programs
proves this fact. Three of every four applications for conservation
programs are turned down because of a lack of funding.
Clearly, American farmers want to be good stewards of the environment
and want greater funding for conservation programs. This amendment
provides these resources.
The amendment will also provide more equity to farmers who do not
grow traditional commodity products, such as corn, soybeans, and wheat.
In my district, farmers grow specialty crops, such as brussels sprouts,
which are eligible for commodity assistance. Through this amendment,
more of these farmers will be eligible for federal assistance under
conservation programs.
This investment will not only benefit our farmers, it will benefit
our environment, protect wildlife habitats and wetlands, and promote
organic and environmentally friendly farming techniques.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell
amendment.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-
Kind-Gilchrest conservation amendment to H.R. 2646, the farm bill of
2001.
Based on the Working Lands Stewardship Act, this important amendment
would go a long way to protect and preserve the environment through
existing, voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs.
Mr. Chairman, our farm policy should reward farmers and ranchers when
they meet our Nation's environmental challenges. As we all know, two of
three farmers currently seeking USDA conservation assistance are denied
due to lack of funding. Unless we increase conservation funding, one-
third of our rivers and lakes will remain polluted, millions of acres
of open space will be lost and scores of species will become extinct.
This critical conservation amendment will improve water quality,
protect against flooding and provide a safe haven for wildlife. That's
why it's so important to not only rural America,
[[Page H6324]]
but suburban and urban America as well. After all, preserving and
protecting the environment is an obligation all Americans share.
The committee's bill is totally inadequate as a conservation measure
because it fails to tie government farm payments to conservation
practices, and the funding for conservation programs is clearly
insufficient.
The amendment before us is absolutely essential to increase access to
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetlands Reserve Program
(WRP), the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP), and the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program (WHIP).
Let's pass the Boehlert-Kind amendment. Let's do the right thing for
America's future and increase conservation of our precious natural
resources.
Make no mistake about it. This vote is one of the most important
environmental protection votes of the decade. I urge a ``yes'' vote for
this critical conservation amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of an urban district,
I am proud to express my strong support for the Boehlert-Kind-
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment.
My citizens in Parma, OH, a suburb of Cleveland, have been struggling
for over a year to save wetlands in their city from development. A
century of sprawl has left only 153 acres of wetlands there. These
wetlands are part of a watershed of the Cuyahoga River, an American
Heritage river that feeds into Lake Erie, and these wetlands are
critical to ecological health. The citizens in my district, in their
effort to set wetlands aside and restore them, need a federal solution.
The programs in the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment are
needed now more than ever to help. These programs are critical in order
to preserve urban greenspace and dedicate resources to wetland
preservation before development takes over all greenspace and wetlands.
The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment would help protect the
more than 90 million of acres of farmland that are currently threatened
by sprawl by increasing funding to $100 million for FY2002 and
increasing this amount through 2011. It would protect urban greenspace
by boosting mandatory funding to $50 annually through 2011.
These programs are crucial to cities across America. My citizens are
struggling with the problems of sprawl and lack of wetlands protection
now. Small, individual communities and farmers don't have the planning
strategy and resources to effectively prevent these problems. There is
a need for the programs and funding in this amendment, and this need
existed years ago. This amendment is overdue.
We should approve this amendment so other communities don't have to
put up the same fight to save greenspace in their cities, and I urge my
colleagues to vote for the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Boehlert-
Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment to H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of
2001. This amendment would expand Federal conservation efforts and more
equitably distribute federal funds from USDA income support programs.
The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment would expand several
conservation programs that are incredibly beneficial to farmers in my
home State of New York, as well as farmers across the country.
According to USDA, New York State received only 0.53 percent of the
total conservation funding. We can do much better.
In fact, 34 States fare better under this amendment than under H.R.
2646. By shifting just 15 percent of the $12 billion spent annually on
commodities from these programs to conservation, more farmers in more
States will get assistance. Programs such as the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, Farmland Protection Program, Wetlands Reserve
Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program are all improved to address the needs of smaller and
disadvantaged farmers more adequately.
In addition, New York farmers receive only about 0.65 percent of the
total Federal crop funding. This amendment would ensure that
noncommodity crop producers are eligible for a larger share of Federal
farm spending, which is currently concentrated in select States.
In fact, farmers in New York, as well as those in California,
Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania receive only 3 cents in
Federal funds for every dollar they earn, compared with the 20 cents
per dollar received by farmers in the Great Plains States.
However, this measure does not destroy the safety net for commodity
producers. Under the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment,
producers--even the top 10 percent of producers--still get higher
payments than the average of the past 10 years, and many times more
than they were slated to receive under the last farm bill.
In fact, the Bush administration agrees that H.R. 2646 directs
Federal payments to those with the least need, saying yesterday that
``there is no question that some of our Nation's producers are in
serious financial straits, especially smaller farmers and ranchers.
Rather than address these unmet needs, H.R. 2646 would continue to
direct the greatest share of resources to those least in need of
government assistance.''
Many prominent State agencies, agricultural and conservation groups
have endorsed the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment to H.R.
2646, including the New York State Department of Agriculture, the
Audubon Society, and the Wildlife Management Institute. This amendment
is a step forward in our efforts to ensure the future of American
agriculture and preserve our environment simultaneously. I urge my
colleagues to support this important amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200,
noes 226, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 366]
AYES--200
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Castle
Clay
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goss
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Harman
Hart
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reynolds
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Walsh
Waters
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--226
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
[[Page H6325]]
Hobson
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCrery
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Schaffer
Schrock
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Traficant
Turner
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Burton
Collins
Gibbons
Houghton
Visclosky
{time} 1706
Messrs. ROGERS of Michigan, RILEY, THOMAS, HUNTER, and RUSH, and Mrs.
MEEK of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The pending
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Vacating Request for Recorded Vote on Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr.
Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, since my request for a recorded vote on
my amendment that would have banned interstate transfer of game birds
for cockfighting purposes, I have had conversations with the Chair and
ranking member of the Committee.
I would like to express my appreciation for their commitment to work
to keep these provisions in the bill, I would like to acknowledge it,
and accordingly, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a
recorded vote and ask that that be vacated, and that the question on
agreeing to the amendment be put to the Chamber de novo.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the demand for a
recorded vote is vacated.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Conyers:
In title V, strike section 517 and redesignate succeeding
sections (and amend the table of contents) accordingly.
At the end of title IX, insert the following;
SEC. 9________. TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MINORITY
AND DISADVANTAGED FARMERS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure
compilation and public disclosure of data critical to
assessing and holding the Department of Agriculture
accountable for the equitable participation of minority,
limited resource, and women farmers and ranchers in programs
of the Department.
(b) Use of Target Participation Rates in All Department of
Agriculture Programs for Farmers and Ranchers.--
(1) Establishment.--For each county and State in the United
States, the Secretary of Agriculture shall establish an
annual target participation rate equal to the number of
socially disadvantaged residents in the political subdivision
in proportion to the total number of residents in the
political subdivision. In this section, the term ``socially
disadvantaged resident'' means a resident who is a member of
a socially disadvantaged group (as defined in section
355(e)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act).
(2) Comparison with actual participation rates.--The
Secretary shall compute annually the actual participation
rates of socially disadvantaged and women farmers and
ranchers as a percentage of the total participation of all
farmers and ranchers, for each program of the Department of
Agriculture in which a farmer or rancher may participate. In
determining these rates, the Secretary shall consider the
number of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers of each
race or ethnicity, and the number of women participants in
each county and State in proportion to the total number of
participants in each program.
(c) Compilation of Election Participation Data, and Public
Disclosure Requirements for County Committee Elections.--
Effective 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
section, section 8(a)(5)(B) of the Soil Conservation and
Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 509h(a)(5)(B)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(v)(I) The committee shall publicly announce at least 10
days in advance the date, time, and place where ballots will
be opened and counted. No ballots may be opened until such
time, and anyone may observe the opening and counting of
ballots.
``(II) Within 20 days after the elections, the committee
shall compile and report to the State and national offices
the number of eligible voters in the county and in each open
local administrative area or at large district, the number of
ballots counted, the number and percentage of ballots
disqualified, and the proportion of eligible voters compared
to votes cast. The committee shall further compile, in each
category above, the results aggregated by race, ethnicity,
and gender, as compared to total eligible voters and total
votes. The committee shall also report as provided above, the
number of nominees for each open seat and the election
results, aggregated by race, ethnicity and gender, as well as
the new composition of the county or area committee.
``(III) The Secretary shall, within 90 days after the
election, compile a report which aggregates all data
collected under subclause (II) and presents results at the
national, regional, State, and local levels.
``(IV) The Secretary shall analyze the data compiled in
subclauses (II) and (III) and within 1 year after the
completion of the report referred to in subclause (III),
shall prescribe (and open to public comment) uniform
guidelines for conducting elections for members and
alternates of county committees, including procedures to
allow appointment as voting members of groups, or methods to
assure fair representation of groups who would be
demographically underrepresented in that county.''.
(d) Requirements for Electronic, Web, and Printed
Disclosure of Data.--The Secretary shall compile the actual
number of farmers and ranchers, classified by race or
ethnicity and gender, for each county and State with national
totals. The Secretary shall, for the current and each of the
4 preceding years, make available to the public on websites
that the Department of Agriculture regularly maintains, and
in electronic and paper form, the above information, as well
as all data required under subsection (b) of this section and
section 8(a)(5)(B)(v) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act, at the county, State, and national levels in a
manner that allows comparisons among target and actual
program and election participation rates, among and between
agricultural programs, among and between demographically
similar counties, and over time at the county, State and
national levels.
(e) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall maintain and
make readily available to the public all data required under
subsections (b) and (d) of this section and section
8(a)(5)(B)(v) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act collected annually since the most recent Census of
Agriculture. After each Census of Agriculture, the Secretary
shall report to Congress and the public the rate of loss or
gain in participation by each group, by race, ethnicity, and
gender, since the previous Census of Agriculture.
(f) Accountability.--The Secretary may also use the above
data, including comparisons with demographically similar
counties and with national averages, to monitor and evaluate
election and program participation rates and agricultural
programs, and civil rights compliance, and in county
committee employee and Department of Agriculture employee
performance reviews, and in developing outreach and other
strategies and recommendations to assure agriculture programs
and services meet the needs of socially disadvantaged and
women producers.
(g) Conforming Amendment.--Section 355(c)(1) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
2005(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Establishment.--In paragraph (2), the term `target
participation rate' means, with respect to a State, the
target participation rate established for purposes of
subtitle B of this title pursuant to section 9____(c)(1) of
the Farm Security Act of 2001.''.
[[Page H6326]]
Modification to Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to replace the
amendment with a conforming amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Conyers:
In title V, strike section 517(a).
Conform the section heading (and table of contents)
accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would
just like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan.
This particular amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
deals with a provision that I asked to be inserted in the bill and was
inserted during the course of the markup in the Committee on
Agriculture, and it did pass and is in the mark.
The particular provision deals with direct operating loans made by
the Farm Service Agency to farmers versus guaranteed operating loans
that are made by the Farm Service Agency that are guaranteed by banks.
The problem that I seek to address with this particular provision is
that the default rate on loans, direct loans made by the Federal
Government, is somewhere historically in the 10 to 12 to 14 percent
range, whereas the default rate on guaranteed loans has historically
been more in the range of 1 to 2 to 3 percent.
Now, that is a lot of money that the Federal Government is losing
because of the direct operating loans made by the bank. What we simply
sought to do was to basically get the government out of the farm
lending business and let the financial institutions make those loans.
The gentleman, I understand, has agreed to modify his amendment,
which I am willing to accept, because what we asked for in addition to
the sunset was a study to be done by GAO on the guaranteed as well as
the non-guaranteed loans. I am perfectly willing to do that, and we
agreed to modify the sunset provision.
But I wanted to explain exactly why we did ask for this provision. It
is not directed to any particular group of farmers around the country
or types of farmers around the country, but if we are losing money on
these loans and the banks are not, we need to know what we are doing
wrong.
With that, I will refer back to the gentleman, on his amendment.
{time} 1715
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman for his
statement and for his understanding that we have a serious problem here
with the minority farmers in America, the black farmers in particular.
We have got a problem here with the participation rates, with the
Farm Service Agency, county committee elections and a number of other
very genuine concerns. What I thought might be appropriate and part of
our agreement, Mr. Chairman, is that we proceed at some expedient time
to have hearings in the committee on these aggregate issues that are
before us. Is that part of the Chairman's understanding?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, that is a fair request and we are
absolutely willing to work with the gentleman on doing that.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to hear that. As the
gentleman knows, there are a number of organizations that are working
with us on this because we have these elections procedures that also
are part of the review that we would like the Committee on Agriculture
to make.
So with those understandings I would be happy to yield to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina if she wanted to add something, or she
can secure time on her own.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I
yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his leadership in
this issue.
There were two issues that this amendment addressed. One was the
direct loan being sunset, denying disadvantaged and small farmers and
ranchers the opportunity to go directly to the Department of
Agriculture and borrow money other than through the guarantee loans.
Many of us felt that to deny that opportunity would deny small farmers
and ranchers an opportunity that more secure persons had. So we felt
very strongly and I thank the gentleman for raising that.
I understand that what the gentleman has done is to say that he is
willing to strike that altogether and just have the study.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. We have worked with the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) earlier to strike that sunset
provision. We will proceed ahead with the studies that we had in there
as another part of it. We will have hearings on it after the studies
are done and we will see what is the best route to take.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the other part of the Conyers amendment
spoke to the civil rights issues both in the equity and distribution of
Farm Services that are administered through Farm Services, whether they
are loans, technical assistance or environmental programs. The array of
programs we give all farmers. We wanted public record of that so that
we knew that that would be going to all farmers equitably, without
regard to race, without regard to gender or size.
The second part of that was a fair distribution of the election of
the committee. My understanding on that was that we would have hearings
to vet that and come to see how we could get a more fair representation
on the committee and have some public disclosure on how public funds
were being spent in various counties. Am I correct in my understanding?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the
gentlewoman has stated it perfectly.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to share with the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) my total cooperation with the spirit of this unanimous consent
request. The study will go forward, but there will be hearings to
address all of the questions that are raised with this. I will be more
than happy to work with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think the requests are fair and I look forward to
working with my colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The modification is agreed to.
Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) seek time on his
amendment?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, for more than 60 years,
the Federal government has fostered rural development through farm
credit and other programs that are vital to small farms. Small,
minority, women and beginning farmers have often had no other access to
credit than USDA and Farmers Home Administration.
The Conyers amendment preserves this traditional role as the ``lender
of last resort'', maintaining open entry for a new generation of
farmers by restoring the direct lending role that would otherwise end
in five years.
The programs and services of the Federal government should be freely
accessible and open to all who are eligible to receive them. Local
participation has been one of the high-points of USDA programs for
years. To make this goal a reality, Mr. Conyers has worked with the
Majority to reinstate the direct lending provisions of H.R. 2646.
However, some farmers have been excluded who do not meet some local
idea of eligible farmers. Minority farm loss in previous decades has
skyrocketed at a rate more than three times that of other farmers.
Between 1987 and 1997, an additional 20% of African-American farms were
lost.
The lack of clear data on how many minority and women producers are
on the land and
[[Page H6327]]
participating in USDA programs is a critical barrier to any efforts to
seek fairness.
To address this problem, it is my understanding that the majority has
agreed to hold full committee hearings on the subject of equitable
participation in the FSA county committee system. As a member of the
Agriculture Committee, I expect that we will be able to recommend that
target participation rates be computed for each county and state based
on the total number of socially-disadvantaged residents in a county in
proportion to the number of residents as a whole. This data would then
be posted for each USDA program by county, state, and nationally on all
USDA websites.
We want to ensure equitable participation by all farmers in county
committee elections and to provide public information and oversight of
elections. To accomplish these goals, the responsible course of action
is to require the opening of all ballots be open to the public.
Election results would be posted to the Internet and the Secretary
would have authority to intervene when adequate representation is not
achieved.
Mr. Chairman, the success of our smallest farmers depends largely the
willingness of the Federal government to ensure a fair process. I
submit that the Conyers amendment seeks to level a playing field that
has operated to their disadvantage for some time. I urge my colleagues
to support the Conyers amendment and vote for its passage.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as
modified, offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of title IX (page ____, after line ____), insert
the following new section:
SEC. ____. COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT AND SENSE OF
CONGRESS REGARDING PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE
EQUIPMENT, PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES USING FUNDS
PROVIDED UNDER THIS ACT.
(a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds made
available under this Act, whether directly using funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation or pursuant to an authorization
of appropriations contained in this Act, may be provided to a
producer or other person or entity unless the producer,
person, or entity agrees to comply with the Buy American Act
(41 U.S.C. 10a-10c) in the expenditure of the funds.
(b) Sense of Congress.--In the case of any equipment,
products, or services that may be authorized to be purchased
using funds provided under this Act, it is the sense of
Congress that producers and other recipients of such funds
should, in expending the funds, purchase only American-made
equipment, products, and services.
(c) Notice to Recipients of Funds.--In providing payments
or other assistance under this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall provide to each recipient of the funds a
notice describing the requirements of subsection (a) and the
statement made in subsection (b) by Congress.
Modification to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be modified with the language at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page 361, add after line 3 the following:
TITLE X--REPORTS
SEC. 1001. ANNUAL REPORT ON IMPORTS OF BEEF AND PORK.
The Secretary shall submit to the Congress an annual report
on the amount of beef and pork that is imported into the
United States each calendar year.
Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request to the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this modification strictly says that
shall be a study as to the impact of beef and pork being imported to
America and it shall report back to the respective committees on these
imports which affect our cattle and pork producers which have suffered
some grave problems.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. We
have had a discussion on this amendment and it is acceptable to us. I
appreciate the gentleman's help.
Mr. TRAFICANT. We have seen news reels of farmers literally shooting
their livestock. We have seen live hogs selling for 17 cents a pound.
This basically is a study that will inform the leadership of our
Congress as to the impact of foreign beef and pork into America, hogs
and cattle.
Mr. Chairman, with that I ask that the amendment be accepted. I
believe it makes sense that we should do this and have the exact
quantification of the numbers and its impact on many small farmers who
use land that is not necessarily able to produce good cash crops but
can raise, in fact, good nutritious meat and other by-products.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the committee,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure about what the earlier
statement that I did make that was not clear, but as I indicated, we
accept the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished ranking
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, we also accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the amendment, as modified, offered by gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Miller of Florida
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 41.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Miller of Florida:
Strike sections 151, 152, and 153 (page 75, line 19,
through page 102, line 20) and insert the following new
section:
SEC. 151. SUGAR PROGRAM.
(a) Extension of Program at Reduced Loan Rates.--Section
156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``sugar.'' and inserting
``sugar through the 2001 crop of sugercane and 17 cents per
pound for raw cane sugar for the 2002 through 2011 crops of
sugarcane.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``sugar.'' and inserting
``sugar through the 2001 crop of sugar beets and 21.6 cents
per pound for refined beet sugar for the 2002 through 2011
crops of sugar beets.''; and
(3) in subsection (i), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2011''.
(b) Expiration of Marketing Assessment.--Effective October
1, 2003, subsection (f) of section 156 of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C.
7251) is repealed.
(c) Increase in Forfeiture Penalty.--Subsection (g)(2) of
section 156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7251) is amended by striking ``1 cent''
and inserting ``2 cents''.
(d) Availability of Savings for Conservation and
Environmental Stewardship Programs.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use funds appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in paragraph
(3) to augment conservation and environmental stewardship
programs established or amended in title II of this Act or
for other conservation and environmental programs
administered by the Department of Agriculture.
(2) Priority.--In using the funds appropriated pursuant to
the authorization of appropriations in paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall give priority to conservation and
environmental programs administered by the Department of
Agriculture that conserve, restore, or enhance the Florida
Everglades ecosystem.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary $30,000,000 for each of
the fiscal years 2002 through 2011. Amounts appropriated
pursuant to this authorization of appropriations shall be
available until expended and are in addition to, and not in
place of, other funds made available under this Act or any
other Act for the programs referred to in paragraph (1).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I yield to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
(Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
[[Page H6328]]
I want to congratulate my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) on a
worthwhile amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because reforming
the sugar program will help clean up the Everglades. It will allow our
constituents to keep their hard earned tax dollars instead of handing
them over to sugar growers.
We are asking taxpayers to spend $8 billion to clean up the
Everglades. At the same time--the sugar industry, which continues to
pollute this national treasure, is being subsidized by those same
taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be asked to support this program.
With my statement, I am submitting an editorial from the Orlando
Sentinel illustrating the substantial damage the sugar program has done
to the environment. Reforming the sugar program will help clean up the
Everglades at a faster pace.
The current sugar program costs consumers over $1.9 billion per year
according to the General Accounting Office (GAO). The program, which
sugar growers claim operates at no net cost actually cost taxpayers
$435 million last year when the growers forfeited roughly one million
pounds of sugar. To compound that injury, all our constituents are
helping to pay $1.4 million per month to store sugar the government
can't get rid of.
If that isn't enough, the Orlando Sentinel article states that, Big
Sugar is back asking for more government bailouts. Last summer sugar
growers were bailed out again when $54 million worth of sugar was
purchased by the Department of Agriculture. They emphasized that this
wouldn't happen again, yet this year they had another payment in Kind
program (PIK) where they told beet farmers, plow up $20,000 worth of
sugar and we will give you $20,000 worth of sugar sitting in our
warehouses. What a waste of money. We ask you to stand up to the
attempts of the sugar growers to line their own pockets with your
constituent's tax dollars.
The Miller-Miller Amendment:
Reforms but does not eliminate the program.
It is consistent with the Administration's principles that we should
not rely on production controls and we should get away from government
run price supports.
Makes the program more market-oriented by reduced support levels.
Protects the environment through reduced production.
Provides for savings to protect surplus.
Provides for increased funding for protecting the environment,
particularly the Everglades.
The Miller-Miller amendment is an attempt to bring some sanity to
this sugar program. It is supported by taxpayer, consumer,
environmental and business groups from across the spectrum. It deserves
your support.
[From the Orlando Sentinel, Oct. 1, 2001]
Derail Sugar Aid
Our position: The sugar industry's attempt to protect
itself is downright obscene.
The nation's financial needs in the wake of the horrific
terrorist attack of Sept. 11 are staggering. The airline
industry is on the verge of collapse. The markets are weak
and volatile. America is struggling, emotionally and
financially.
The sugar industry, though, seemingly couldn't care less.
While the nation mourns, sugar farmers have been scurrying
around Washington in a fervent bid to protect their own
interests. And they just might prevail. The U.S. House of
Representatives is expected to take up a hastily conceived
farm-aid bill this week. The package includes a provision
that would, with a few minor tweaks, continue to cost
American consumers nearly $2 billion a year in added food
costs, accordingly to a recent government analysis.
In a time of plenty, those demands could be considered
arrogant. But in this time of uncertainty, they are downright
obscene.
For more than six decades, government leaders have coddled
the sugar industry, a relationship nurtured by the millions
of dollars sugar producers pump into federal campaign
coffers. The industry has relied on Americans to provide them
with government-inflated price guarantees, foreign-import
restrictions and low-interest federal loans. Last year, sugar
farmers defaulted on about $460 million worth of those loans.
Not surprisingly, though, industry executives blame
everyone but themselves for their failures. The can't compete
with foreign sugar producers because of foreign price
supports. They're not allowed to sell their products
overseas. Government forced the industry to default on the
loans last year.
Woe are the sugar barons.
If trade agreements prohibit sugar from effective free-
market competition, that shouldn't be remedied by a
convoluted, decades-old bailout program. It should be
addressed at the negotiating table.
Why, too should taxpayers continue to prop up the industry
when, at the same time, they're supporting an $8 billion
Everglades restoration effort? Sugar-cane production in
Florida, concentrated south of Lake Okeechobee, has exploded
from 50,000 acres in 1960 to approximately 500,000 acres
today, thanks in part to government support of the sugar
industry. Does anyone realize that polluted runoff from those
farm expansion helped make the restoration necessary in the
first place?
There are intriguing alternatives. Rep. Dan Miller, from
Bradenton, has proposed an amendment that would wean sugar
from the taxpayer teat, pump an additional $300 million into
Everglades restoration and save consumers up to $500 million
a year.
Ultimately, that may be the best solution.
But as the editorial below explains in further detail, far
more pressing issues now demand the attention of government
leaders. Sugar's needs don't even make the list.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the Miller-
Miller amendment, is a modest and simple reform of the sugar program.
It is not the elimination of the program. In 1996, we tried to
eliminate the program, missed by 5 votes then, but we kind of are
reluctant in this Congress to eliminate anything, especially in the
agriculture program.
So this is a modest one-cent change in sugar. That is right. We are
only going to lower the price from 18 cents to 17 cents, a 5 percent
reduction in the price of sugar, which amounts to a $500 million
savings, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $500 million
worth of savings over the next 10 years.
This is a very bipartisan bill, as my colleagues will see from the
vote on this particular amendment. Even the secretaries of agriculture
from three different administrations have come out in favor of this
amendment. Secretary Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture under President
Clinton, Secretary Clayton Yeutter under President Bush, and Secretary
Jack Block under President Reagan, have all come out and said the sugar
program is no longer sustainable, we need to change it, and this
amendment is a good step in the right direction.
Let me briefly comment about what the sugar program is. Well, the
sugar program is a Federal program where we maintain a very high price
for sugar in the United States. In fact, sugar prices in the United
States are two to three times world prices. That is right, we pay two
to three times world prices for sugar, and what it does is it hurts
consumers, it hurts jobs, it hurts the taxpayers, bad on the
environment, bad on trade.
The way it works is the Federal Government tries to manage how much
sugar is imported into the country, a very difficult challenge, but we
have to allow some imports, and we do not grow enough in the United
States. So it tries to manage trade, and here we are, the great free
trading country of the world and we are managing trade for sugar. Then
what it does, it loans sugar farmers money, and it kicks the sugar as a
guarantee and, if they cannot get this high price for sugar, the
government says we will buy it back, and we were told back in 1996 it
was no cost to this program. No cost to the sugar program.
Last year the Federal Government bought $435 million worth of sugar
and does not know what to do with the sugar. It is bad for the
consumers as I have said. What I mean by bad for consumers is the
General Accounting Office, which is the independent agency of Congress,
we, division of Congress, branch of Congress, spend $400 million with
the General Accounting Office to do studies for us. Their studies show
it costs $1.9 billion a year. I know the other side is going to say,
oh, that is not right. We spend $400 million for this agency in
Congress to do these type of studies, and that is what it says, $1.9
billion.
As far as the taxpayers, they have already got this $435 million
worth of sugar from last year, and they do not know what to do with it.
The latest idea is they are going to have all these sugar farmers where
we just bought their sugar, said if they will plow up $20,000 worth of
sugar, we will give them $20,000 worth of sugar.
Explain that one to the people back in Florida that we are going to
buy their sugar and then give it back to them. It makes no sense.
When it comes to jobs, we are losing jobs in this country, and I am
sure my colleagues from Chicago will talk about how the candy industry
is being really hurt in Chicago, whether it is a Bob Candy Company in
Albany, Georgia, or the closing down of sugar plants in the city of
Chicago. Mayor Daley and the city council of Chicago have come out in
support of this amendment.
[[Page H6329]]
When it gets to the environment, we are very concerned about our
Florida Everglades, and last year Congress passed an $8 billion program
for restoration of the Everglades, half paid by the State of Florida
and half by the Federal Government. A large part of the problem is
sugar farming. In 1960 there were 50,000 acres of sugar cane grown.
Now, we have 500,000 acres of sugar cane, and it keeps increasing
because our program encourages overproduction of sugar.
What is included in this bill also is out of the $500 million worth
of savings is a program where 300 million can be used for environmental
purposes, for conservation and hopefully for the Everglades. It will be
controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, but it creates a program
that some of the savings can go back into conservation, and hopefully
for the Everglades.
Then we talk about trade. We are one of the great free traders in the
world, except for its sugar. That is the reason the Secretaries of
Agriculture have been opposed to this program because they cannot go
negotiate and say we want to sell more corn, we want to sell more beef,
we want to sell more soybean. We cannot do that because we are always
defending the sugar program. So we need to be fair on this whole trade
issue.
As I said, this has got widespread support and lots of organizations
are supporting it. Whether it is good government organizations or
conservation groups, they are very strong in favor of this amendment.
The sugar program is an anti-free trade, anti-free market movement,
and I hope my colleagues will support me on this amendment.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to propose a time agreement on this
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that all time on this amendment be
limited to 1\1/2\ hours, equally divided between a proponent and an
opponent of the amendment and all amendments thereto.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would that be divided?
Mr. COMBEST. It would be divided between a proponent and an opponent.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on our side the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and I could divide that 45 minutes that
we would have?
Mr. COMBEST. In response to the gentleman from Florida's question, my
next request would be a unanimous consent that half of the time for the
opponent would be given to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) could propose the same
unanimous consent request.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of the
time for the opponent be given to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the proponent and the
opponent under the unanimous consent request each will be recognized
for 45 minutes. The time allocated on both sides to the proponents and
opponents will be divided equally accordingly.
There was no objection.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
{time} 1730
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, we are now to what I call the M&M
amendment, and I rise in opposition to the M&M amendment and hope my
colleagues understand what this amendment will do. It may have been
dressed up a little, softened a little, and added a section on giving
money to the Everglades; but the intention is the same, to destroy the
domestic sugar industry.
I want to touch on two points that the proponents of this amendment
will try to claim: first, we have all read about the candy
manufacturers threatening to move to Mexico, they say because of the
high price of sugar in the U.S.; that that is the reason they want to
go. Let us be clear. That is not the reason they want to move to
Mexico.
According to USDA agriculture data, wholesale refined sugar prices
are actually higher in Mexico than they are here. They have been
running about 3 cents per pound higher for most of the last 2 years.
The real reason they are moving is that American wages are 25 times
higher, at $13.46 an hour in Chicago versus 53 cents an hour in Mexico.
American energy costs are five times higher, at $11 per kilowatt in
Chicago versus $2.38 in Mexico. American tax burdens are at least seven
times higher. American protection for workers, the environment, water
and air quality are much higher than Mexico's.
Secondly, do not fall for the comparison of the U.S. price to the
world market price. The so-called ``world market'' for sugar is just a
dumping ground for surplus sugar from countries that subsidize sugar
production and exports. The world market is distorted because of the
elaborate sugar programs that exist in virtually every country that
produces sugar. U.S. sugar policy has acted as a cushion against
imports from the world dump market, where prices have run only about
half the world average of cost of producing sugar for most of the last
2 decades.
America's sugar farmers are efficient by world standards and willing
to compete on a level field against world sugar farmers, but cannot
compete against foreign governments.
In closing, let me be up front. The real purpose of the M&M amendment
is to drive sugar down further. They are already down nearly 30 percent
since 1996, for the benefit of the grocery chains, candy manufacturers
and food manufacturing corporations, who are behind the M&M amendment.
I oppose this and ask my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2
minutes.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
support of this amendment to reform the outdated sugar program. This
amendment is supported by Republicans, it is supported by Democrats, it
is supported by conservatives, liberals, Easterners, Westerners and all
those in between.
Three former Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture also
support this amendment. In a recent letter, which I will submit for the
Record, former Agriculture Secretaries Block, Yeutter, and Glickman
say, ``The sugar program no longer serves the intended public policy
goals.'' And they continue on by saying, ``The reform of the sugar
program is long overdue.''
That is what this amendment does. It provides for long overdue
reform. I have joined with my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), in support of
this amendment. We have joined together to support the reform of the
sugar program for several clear and convincing reasons.
The sugar program costs the taxpayers money. In fact, real money. In
fact, a lot of money: $465 million last year alone. The sugar program
costs consumers money. In fact, real money and a lot of money: $2
billion in higher prices, according to the General Accounting Office.
The sugar program takes away good paying jobs from the American
workers. Hundreds of jobs have been lost at the C&H sugar refinery in
California in my congressional district, and thousands of candy jobs in
the district of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
The sugar program concentrates its rewards on a small number of
wealthy farmers. In fact, the General Accounting Office reported that
the largest 1 percent of the growers get 40 percent of the sugar
program's benefits. The sugar program hurts the environment. In fact,
the overproduction of sugar caused by the program is one of the main
factors behind the tragic pollution of the Everglades in Florida.
The Miller-Miller amendment is reasonable, and it provides the kind
of reform we need. It does not end the sugar support program, but it
does make the program less generous to the sugar growers and thereby
makes sugar farming more of a market-based decision rather than a
decision on how big the Federal subsidy will be. The effect is to
control the overproduction, which has caused so many of these fiscal
and environmental problems.
The Miller-Miller amendment would save taxpayers money by reducing
the
[[Page H6330]]
direct purchases of excess sugar, putting those savings into
agriculture conservation programs in desperate need of our support.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this ill-thought-
out amendment.
The cost of sugar included in a $1.72 bag of candy is roughly 8
cents. Candy companies actually spend more money on the wrapper than
they do on the sugar that goes into the candy. So how exactly is it
that the sugar producers are ripping off consumers? It is simple: they
are not.
In fact, while domestic sugar prices have dropped dramatically in
recent years, a 25 percent decrease since 1996, the price consumers are
paying for sugar in the grocery store has increased 4 percent during
that same time period. Producer prices for sugar are at a 22-year low
and consumer prices for sugar are at a 20-year high. Now, why is that?
Where is that money going? Well, let me tell my colleagues.
The price for raw sugar has been reduced 14.8 percent, it has been
reduced 28.8 percent for wholesale sugar, at the same time the prices
for sugar for cereal have increased 4.3 percent and candy at 7.7
percent. So when I hear about all of those jobs lost in the candy
industry, I am sorry that that has happened; but to try to lay the
blame on sugar simply does not cut the mustard.
The price of cookies has increased 8 percent, bakery products 8.5
percent, ice cream 13.7 percent. Even more telling is the fact that
cereal has increased by over 4 percent, as I said earlier, and candy,
cookies, and so on. So when we hear the argument of the Miller-Miller
amendment that this program will equal savings to consumers, think
again. It will not equal savings to consumers; it will simply hurt
producers because they are the ones who continue to pay for the
reductions in sugar. The reduction in current producer prices has
historically stopped at the pockets of the manufacturer, with consumer
prices increasing while the struggling sugar industry continues to
suffer.
I have beet farmers in Wyoming. They are great stewards of the land.
There is no pollution due to sugar beet farming, and these sugar beet
farmers would be very ill affected. I ask all my colleagues to vote
against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record additional information on our
sugar policy:
Grocers Boost Retail Sugar Price to 20-Year High While Producer Prices
Fall to 22-Year Low
The price farmers receive for their sugar--the wholesale
refined sugar price--has been running at about a 22-year low
for most of the past years. Have consumers seen any benefit?
None. In fact, consumer prices for sugar just hit a 20-year
high. The big grocery chains not only failed to pass any of
their savings on lower producer prices for sugar along to
consumers. They did the opposite. They chose instead to
increase their retail sugar prices, and their profits.
According to USDA data, the grocery-store price of sugar
rose to 44.3 cents per pound in July. That's the first time
since April of 1981 that the U.S. retail price of sugar has
reached 44 cents. And these grocers want this Congress to
believe that knocking the producer price for sugar down even
further would benefit consumers. How gullible do they think
we are?
Lower producer prices for sugar mean more American beet and
cane farmers go out of business and more profits for grocery
chains. But the numbers irrefutably show that lower producer
prices for sugar do not mean lower prices for consumers.
____
Food, Candy Manufacturers Benefit When Sugar Producer Prices Fall,
Consumers Do Not
The previous speaker described the windfall profits grocery
chains have siphoned from the pockets of American sugar
farmers--farmer prices are down 29%, but consumer prices have
risen since 1996. More than half the sugar we consume is in
the form of products, particularly highly sweetened products
such as candy, cookies, cakes, cereal and ice cream. Have the
food manufacturers given consumers a break on prices for
these products? Of course, not. Since 1996, cereal prices are
up 4%, candy prices are up 8%; cookies, cakes, and other
baked goods up 8%; ice cream, up 14%. All this while the
price they pay for their sugar is down by 29%. The food
manufacturers, like the grocery chains, want to keep sugar
farmers' prices down, so they can keep their corporate profit
margins up.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas
for yielding me this time.
I rise against the M&M amendment and ask my colleagues to vote
against it. I am deeply disturbed by the constant attack on the sugar
industry. When they attack the sugar industry, they are really
attacking my working people that are out there in the fields planting
the cane and harvesting it, going to the mills and reducing it to brown
sugar or molasses. There are about 6,000 jobs in my State that are
dependent upon this industry, and throughout the country maybe 300,000
or 400,000 individuals.
I consider this really an attack upon an industry of hardworking
farmers who have struggled to survive. There was a time, only 10 years
ago, when we had 13 sugar plantations in operation. They have struggled
to stay alive. There is nobody making tons of money in this industry,
but Hawaii has benefited in the past from these plantations that have
been permitted to exist, and they have existed because there had been a
strong farm program. I thank the Congress and I thank the leadership
for continuing to support that concept.
Somehow or other there is a myth out there that there is a huge
subsidy for sugar in this bill or anywhere. There is no subsidy. In
fact, there is explicit language in the bill that says, and it directs
the Secretary of Agriculture to operate the sugar program at no cost to
the American taxpayer. So what are we talking about? We are talking
about the candy factories and people in the international marketing
combine.
And, incidentally, the three former Secretaries of Agriculture that
distributed a letter are all lobbyists for mega industries that are
selling candy, Nabisco and Nestles and whatever. So we have to look
critically at this letter.
This is about farmers. Hardworking people. There is no subsidy. In
fact, there is a provision in this bill that says it should have no
cost to the American taxpayer. So where is the conflict? There is none.
It seems to me that we are generally for the people who produce an
essential commodity for our American market, so we should not be
considering this kind of destructive amendment which would kill our
industry and destroy the only two that remain now in my State. Two
struggling plantations.
If this amendment should pass, we will be wiped out, and 6,000
workers in my State will be out of work. Already my State has been
decimated after September 11 because of what happened and the closing
down of the tourist industry. We simply cannot tolerate this. So I ask
my colleagues to balance the equities today. It does not cost the
taxpayers a dime. There is no subsidy. This is a genuine farm product
that we are producing.
Kill the M&M amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment offered by
Representative Dan Miller and Representative George Miller and ask that
my colleagues vote against it.
I am deeply disturbed by the determination of the amendment's
sponsors to destroy our nation's sugar industry. I shudder to think of
the impact that this amendment would have on my state's economy. Hawaii
has already been hit very hard by the tragedy of September 11th. In the
past 2 weeks, some 6,000 workers have been added to our State's
unemployment lines because of the dramatic decline in the number of
visitors coming to our islands.
I must admit that I take this attack on the American sugar industry
very personally. I do not believe that any sugar-growing area of the
country has taken the hits that my rural district in Hawaii has. In
1986, 13 sugar factories were operating and sugarcane was grown on all
of the four major islands. The beautiful fields of green waving
sugarcane were a cherished part of our landscape. Today, only two sugar
companies are still operating--one on the island of Maui and one on
Kauai. The survival of these remaining companies on which the fragile
rural economies of these islands depend would be severely jeopardized
if Miller-Miller became law.
Ironically, Hawaii produces more sugar per acre with fewer person
hours per ton of sugar produced than anywhere else in the world. But we
pay our productive workers a fair wage and good benefits and we adhere
to the world's highest environmental standards. Those who seek to kill
America's sugar industry--and make no mistake, that is the goal
[[Page H6331]]
here--would export good American jobs to countries that exploit their
workers and employ child labor.
I tire of engaging in this same fight year after year and having to
address the misinformation promulgated by opponents of the U.S. sugar
program. I deeply respect the integrity of the sponsors of this
amendment, but I am puzzled by their relentless vendetta against
American sugar farmers.
I have read letters in support of the Miller-Miller amendment which
lead me to believe that the sponsors truly do not understand the issue.
One of the letters claims that
``Jobs are being lost by the thousands as candy makers, bakeries,
sugar cane refiners, cranberry farmers and jobs that depend on these
industries are lost because the rest of the world pays 7 cents per
pound for sugar while American businesses are forced to pay prices at
least 150% higher.''
This is simply untrue! Opponents of the U.S. sugar program point to
the cost of American-grown sugar compared with the so-called ``world
price'' of sugar. But this ``world price'' sugar represents a mere 20%
of the worldwide sugar traded and sold. This 20% is offered at dump
market prices that are barely half the actual cost of production.
Nations that sell this dump sugar can only do so because the bulk of
their production is being purchased at prices that cover or exceed
actual production costs. For example, growers in the European Union
receive 31 cents per pound compared with the 18 cents-22 cents price
floor for American sugarcane and sugar beet growers provided by H.R.
2646.
No one--not even countries that use child labor--can product raw
sugar for 7 cents a pound. The ``world price'' dump market represents
the subsidized surpluses that countries dump on the world market for
whatever price the surplus sugar will bring.
Two-thirds of the world's sugar is produced at a higher cost than in
the United States, even though American producers adhere to the world's
highest government standards and costs for labor and environmental
protections. U.S. beet sugar producers are the most efficient beet
sugar producers in the world, and American sugarcane producers rank
28th lowest cost among 62 countries--almost all of which are developing
countries with deplorable labor and environmental practices.
So clearly, the ``rest of the world'' is not paying 7 cents per pound
for sugar--many are paying far more than Americans. In fact, the retail
cost of sugar in the United States is 20% below the average paid in
other developed countries. U.S. sugar is about the most affordable in
the world--third lowest in the world in terms of minutes of work (1.9
minutes) to buy one pound of sugar.
We are told that jobs are being lost because manufacturers of candy
and baked goods will move to Mexico for cheaper sugar. I am sorry if
any of my colleagues have been sincerely taken in by this claim, but it
too is utterly false. In fact, the wholesale price that manufacturers
pay for sugar is higher in Mexico than in the Unites States. Businesses
are moving south for cheaper labor, cheaper energy, lower taxes,
and lower or nonexistent environmental standards--not for cheaper
sugar.
Many claim that their opposition to the U.S. sugar program is based
on a concern for consumers who would benefit from lower prices. Now, I
read all the mail that comes from my constituents and I must admit that
I do not remember a single letter from a constituent who was concerned
about the impact of sugar prices on their family's budget. Sugar in
America is so cheap that it is given away in restaurants--it only costs
43 cents a pound retail! Give me a break!
U.S. producer prices for sugar have been down nearly 30% since 1996,
a financial disaster for thousands of American sugar farmers. But
grocers and food manufacturers--the principal supporters of the Miller-
Miller amendment--have passed none of these lower prices along to
consumers. Retail prices for sugar, candy, ice cream, and other
sweetened products are up, not down, though producer prices have fallen
significantly over the past five years.
The deeply flawed study by the GAO has been thoroughly discredited by
the USDA. Economists at the USDA have ``serious concerns'' about the
GAO report, which ``suffers in a number of regards relative to both the
analytical approach and . . . the resulting conclusions.'' USDA
concluded: ``GAO has not attempted to realistically model the U.S.
sugar industry. The validity of the results are, therefore, suspect and
should not be quoted authoritatively.'' As with the 1993 version of
this report, the GAO assumes that food retailers and manufacturers
would pass every cent of savings along to consumers--we have convincing
evidence that this has not happened, nor will it ever.
Why is the sugar industry being singled out? According to USDA, last
year was the only year in which U.S. sugar policy was not a revenue
raiser. And this one-time outlay will be defrayed or possibly
eliminated when the government sells its surplus sugar. The remaining
two sugar companies in Hawaii provide some of the best jobs on these
islands. These long-time ``kama`aina'' companies are struggling to keep
this historic industry alive. Sugar has been grown on many of these
lands for more than 100 years.
Do not be concerned about the cost of the sugar program in this bill.
H.R. 2646 contains language that directs the Secretary of Agriculture
to operate the sugar program at no cost to the American taxpayer.
I was frankly astonished to read the poorly written, inaccurate
letter signed by 3 former Secretaries of Agriculture. The Miller-Miller
proponents have obviously confused the former Secretaries on a number
of issues. They claim that Miller-Miller reduces price supports by a
modest amount--in fact, it effectively reduces the support price by 3
cents--from 18 cents to 15 cents. Let's remember that the loan rate has
been frozen at 18 cents for the past 16 years! In any other crop we'd
be looking at an increase--not a reduction.
The former Secretaries say the sugar program is ``costly to
taxpayers'' but sugar is the only commodity program in the new Farm
Bill designed to run at no cost to taxpayers. The Miller-Miller
amendment would remove the supply management tools that would enable
the Secretary of Agriculture to operate the program at no cost--Miller-
Miller would make sugar policy costly to taxpayers.
The U.S. sugar and corn sweetener producing industry accounts,
directly and indirectly, for an estimated 420,000 American jobs in 42
states and for more than $26 billion per year in economic activity.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Miller-Miller amendment and to
support America's efficient and hard-working sugar farmers.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to mention that while my colleague from Hawaii brings up
the fact there is no net cost, that is not what we were told back in
1996. Last year, the Federal Government bought $435 million worth of
sugar. They have no use for it. They cannot even give it to
Afghanistan, let alone give it away in this country. And we are paying
millions of dollars to store that 750,000 tons of sugar. So it does
cost real dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise today in support of the Miller-Miller amendment to reform the
U.S. sugar program. Over the next 2 months, millions of Americans will
go to their neighborhood grocery stores to do some food shopping. Very
few, if any, of our citizens will realize that the sugar in the
processed foods, cereal, and ice cream they buy is subject to a cost
about double the world price, courtesy of the U.S. Congress and the
sugar program.
Some of these grocery shoppers may head over to the candy cane aisle,
particularly as we get closer to the Christmas season. However, once
again, very few will know that Bob's Candies of Albany, Georgia, the
Nation's largest candy cane manufacturer, had to ship some of its
manufacturing jobs out of the country, to Jamaica, so it could buy
sugar that was 50 percent cheaper than in the United States. They do
not know that the president of Bob's Candies, Mr. Greg McCormick,
stated that reforming the U.S. sugar company would allow his company to
keep those same jobs in America and allow the retail price of his candy
canes to be lowered by 10 to 15 cents a package.
As our citizens walk up to the cash register at this grocery store to
pay their food bill, they will not realize the sugar program is costing
American consumers nearly $2 billion a year in added food costs,
according to the General Accounting Office. As they pull the dollars
out of their wallet, they will not realize that last year our Federal
Government had to spend 465 million taxpayer dollars from the U.S.
treasury to buy surplus domestic sugar and keep the price artificially
high.
{time} 1745
Well, while very few Americans may realize these facts, there are
several well-respected watchdog groups who are aware of the problem.
For example, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax
Reform, and the Heritage Foundation all oppose the sugar program.
The sugar program has also caught the attention of well-respected
environmental groups such as the National
[[Page H6332]]
Audubon Society and the Everglades Trust. These groups know that sugar
cane in the Everglades agricultural area has exploded from 50,000 acres
in 1960 to nearly 500,000 acres today, thanks in part to the U.S. sugar
program.
If these facts are true, and they are, why do we have the sugar
program? Are these sugar growers bad people? Absolutely not. They are
hardworking Americans. They pay taxes. They create thousands of jobs.
They are now applying fertilizer to their crops in a very
environmentally friendly manner, and they are frustrated that foreign
markets are closed to them.
In light of these trade barriers erected by certain foreign
countries, our domestic sugar growers feel they need this complicated
system of price supports, import restrictions, and loan guarantees to
continue in order to thrive.
Well, I agree 100 percent that our country should do everything in
its power when negotiating these trade agreements to open up foreign
markets for our domestic sugar, citrus, and vegetable growers. These
concerns should be addressed head-on at the negotiating table by the
Bush administration.
Until that happens, I believe that the Miller-Miller amendment
strikes the appropriate balance between consumers and sugar growers
because it mends, but does not end, the U.S. sugar program. Under this
amendment, the price support is lowered one penny, from 18 cents to 17
cents per pound. This, coupled with other reforms, will save the
Federal Government $500 million over the next 10 years, according to
the CBO.
Of that amount, the Miller-Miller amendment states that up to $300
million will be used to restore the Florida Everglades. For these
reasons I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Miller-Miller
amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues eat, they are
involved in agriculture and they have a stake in America's oldest and
most basic policy. But our sugar policy is defective,
counterproductive, and is suffocating our economy. The media has
characterized it correctly as being a scandal.
I am proud of the fact that I come from the State of Illinois, an
agricultural powerhouse. I was raised on a small farm in Arkansas, and
so I grew up enjoying the values of rural life. And I know what it
means for a family to survive on hard work, ingenuity, creativity, and
the sweat of their brow.
I support Federal programs which create decent, livable help so that
farmers can live a decent life. But when I find a program like the
sugar program where 1 percent of the farms, just 17 farms, 1 percent,
collect 58 percent of the subsidy, I am outraged. I am outraged because
what it means is that the pot has already been sweetened for the
wealthy, for the few.
Mr. Chairman, subsidies should be given to the needy, not the greedy.
The fallout from this wrong-headed sugar subsidy program ripples across
our entire economy. I represent what could be called the candy capital
of America. Illinois has 31,000 individuals employed in the
confectionery industry, but we have lost 11 percent of our workforce,
and there has been no new plant development since the institution of
this program. We spent over $250 million for sugar last year. Had this
program not been in effect, we would have spent probably only half that
much, while the giant corporate agricultural combines who benefit the
most from the sugar subsidies are not only taking our money, but in
some instances they are causing pollution in certain parts of the
country.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for change. It is time for America to stop
playing sugar daddy to a handful of monopolistic sugar plantations. The
Miller-Miller amendment brings some rationality and fairness to the
industry. The Miller-Miller amendment will protect family farms,
protect jobs in the sugar and confectionery industry and protect our
environment.
We cannot allow ourselves to get sugar-daddied out and sweetened into
bad policies. I would urge every Member who believes in fairness, who
believes that small farmers should have help and assistance, I would
urge them to support the Miller-Miller amendment and do not be a
marshmallow and get suckered in.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller). I appreciate the importance of the Everglades; however, I
oppose the amendment.
Sugar policy, contrary to what Members have been hearing, has been
one of the most successful farm programs from 1991 to 2002. It has been
the most successful. We have heard about $465 million in payment, that
was for 1 year. That was the year 2000. Every other year, 11 out of 12
years, the sugar industry has paid the Federal Government more than it
has gotten back, but we are labeling this as a boondoggle.
I would like to also point out, as my colleagues have said, sugar
prices have fallen 30 percent since 1996. This has been primarily due
to dumping of sugar by Mexico since NAFTA was formed.
In my State, the State of Nebraska, we have seen the fallout.
Currently there have been 17 sugar factories that have closed in the
last 4 or 5 years which represents roughly 40 percent of all of the
factories in the country, in the United States. We currently have 750
producers in the State of Nebraska. In order to open their sugar
factory, in order to survive, they have had to go together and form a
cooperative and pay $185 to $220 per acre in order to keep this thing
going. They are trying to save the sugar beet industry in Nebraska, in
Montana, in Idaho, in Wyoming.
Mr. Chairman, I ask to have it explained to me why producers in those
States need to be taxed 2 cents a pound on sugar additionally, and also
have their loan rate reduced below the cost of production, in order to
pay for renovation of the Everglades?
We just went through a big debate where 10 or 12 or 15 States were
possibly getting a disproportionate amount of commodities; and now we
are talking about laying the wood to, to coin a term, to a group of
States that have nothing to do with the Everglades to pay for the
Everglades. This has already been taken care of. The 1994 Everglades
Forever Act provided $685 million, and the 2000 Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan also addresses this problem.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I support
the bill.
Government's primary function is to protect the people. A stable
domestic food supply is as important to national defense as a military
weapon. Because of a national farm policy, and we all know this and all
Members have to do is look around the country and the world, American
consumers spend less than 11 percent of their income on food.
If Members believe this amendment will reduce the cost of products
containing sugar, they need to listen to these facts. Between 1990 and
2000, the price of raw sugar fell 18 percent; wholesale refined sugar
fell nearly 31 percent; but during that same period of time the
consumer price of cereal, candy, ice cream, and bakery products
increased by 25 to 36 percent.
Few of us remember the rationing of basic foodstuffs in World War II.
In addition to steel and rubber, sugar was rationed. Why? Because it is
essential to a balanced diet, and domestic sources were limited. Even
today, domestic sugar product is not enough to meet our domestic
demand.
If Congress passes this amendment, the domestic sugar industry will
be devastated and American consumers will have to depend on uncertain
foreign sources, which by the way, subsidizes their sugar program. But
as we are also talking about the economy and stimulus packages around
here and with unemployment going up, let me make this point. There are
over 40,000 workers that are involved in this industry. These are
machinists. These are people making $35,000 to $40,000 with health care
insurance.
If Members wonder why I am supporting this amendment, those are three
or four good reasons. I support a
[[Page H6333]]
strong domestic food production industry because it helps our economy
and it protects our people.
Mr. Chairman, if Members truly believe in buying American and made in
America, Members need to reject this amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
(Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, after the September 11 attack, our economy
was weakened and our military expenses have gone up. This is not the
time to levy a $1.8 billion indirect tax on American consumers to
charge a Stalinist high sugar price set by bureaucrats in Washington.
This program also costs over $400 million in taxpayer funds to
overproduce sugar. These funds should go directly to our men and women
in uniform, for the reconstruction of New York, and for securing Social
Security, not politically connected sugar growers lobbying the
government for a government handout in time of war. To these sugar
growers we should say we cannot afford to give a government handout,
there is a war on.
Mayor Daley of Chicago wrote to me with concerns for the jobs of
31,000 workers in Illinois threatened by the sugar program. These jobs
are in many disadvantaged communities like North Chicago, Illinois, my
State's second poorest community; and the legendary Brach's Candy
Company, a Chicago institution, recently shut its doors for good,
moving 1,100 jobs overseas due to high production costs caused by this
sugar program.
The simple fact is: as a result of this program, foreign candy sales
have gone up over 70 percent in the last 5 years and could reach 40
percent of total sales within the next 5 years. Companies such as Jelly
Belly of North Chicago and Craft of Glenview will suffer the same fate
as Brach's if we do not reform this program.
We cannot sit idly by while thousands of people lose their jobs so
that sugar growers can reach into the taxpayer's pocket for yet another
handout. These subsidies cannibalize our economy and segregate us into
economic winners and losers.
The Miller-Miller sugar reform amendment is different from past
reform amendments which would have ended the sugar subsidy program.
This amendment will reform, not eliminate the program; and it will make
it more market oriented, bringing it in line with the administration's
principle that we should move away from price supports towards our core
belief in free and open markets.
The sugar subsidy program cost the taxpayers $465 million last year,
and now costs the government $1 million a month just to store excess
sugar. We cannot sit by while thousands of our constituents lose their
jobs because politically connected growers raid the treasury and
millions of tons of sugar rots away in storage.
Mr. Chairman, please join me in voting against this outdated, unfair
subsidy that pits American's economic interests against each other and
against the principles of free enterprise.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Miller-Miller
sugar amendment. The U.S. sugar program is in critical need of reform.
Unlike most farm programs, the U.S. sugar program has avoided any
market-oriented reform for many years. Artificially high price supports
have distorted the markets leading to expanded domestic production and
oversupply of the U.S. market.
Approximately 50 percent of government payments go to the largest 8
percent of farms, usually corporate owned. A little more than half of
all U.S. farmers share in only 13 percent of the government payments.
The artificially stimulated domestic price of sugar is often twice the
world price. This hurts the American consumers who are forced to pay
substantially more for sugar and sugar-containing products.
{time} 1800
Although we do not have a sugar cane crop of any size in Missouri, we
do have corn growers who produce a substantial amount of sweeteners.
The Missouri corn growers do not create the environmental concerns as
do the cane growers and they also make outstanding contributions to our
alternative fuels industries and associated research. We will have to
find common ground on effecting remedies for the problem.
The Miller-Miller amendment does not gut or eliminate the sugar
program. The amendment reduces the sugar price support rate and current
incentives for overproduction. The amendment increases the penalties
that big sugar processing plants must pay if they fail to repay
government loans. It would make some modest reforms to make the program
more market-oriented, and at the same time, promote conservation. I am
in favor of most conservation aspects of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I am troubled that the bill shows no
concern for fiscal constraint. Most of us promised voters that we would
protect the Social Security trust fund and Medicare funds.
Let us vote for the Miller-Miller amendment. Let us refrain from
passing several of the budget-busting programs without consideration of
the overall budget. We need a farm bill that is responsible, and we
need a bill in a form that we can vote for. I cannot vote for this bill
in this form.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller-Miller
amendment. I cannot debate the issue with my colleagues from the urban
areas on subsidization because they obviously do not understand the
sugar program. It is not subsidized. Read my lips. It is not
subsidized.
What we have in this country is a problem. We have an oversupply of
foreign sugar being brought into the country. That is the problem we
have got. Prices are down but demand is up. So what creates the prices
being down? The subsidization of foreign sugar. When you talk about
these rich corporations, they are so rich they are filing bankruptcy.
Does that not tell you a lot?
When was the last time a rich corporation making all this money in a
farm program would file bankruptcy? Now we have a situation in Montana
where finally some of the producers are trying to pull themselves up by
their bootstraps, buy those factories, reopen them under a value-added
idea, and we are going to kick them. We are going to say, ``No, we're
sorry, that's just not good enough. We not only don't want you to be in
business, we're going to now consider additional trade promotion
authority so we can bring more subsidized product in to put the rest of
you out of business.''
I am a supporter of free trade, but I am here to tell you right now,
after reading the documents that have been floating around from the
administration, Mr. President and your administration, if you are
listening, you are rapidly losing me, because I do not get it. We do
not have an oversupply of sugar in this country. What we now have is an
oversupply of foreign competition that do not respect our labor laws,
do not respect our environment and do not respect American agriculture.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Montana on his
eloquence. I also want to let him know, however, that this is one
Member from an urban area that understands that there is no subsidy in
this program. And let me be clear about that and if there are Members
from the urban cities and suburbs that think there is, there is not a
cash subsidy here. That is a misrepresentation.
But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment offers us a really
easy choice. Do we really want sugar grown by American farmers? Do we
really? Because if we do not, then vote for this amendment, because its
import will effectively put out of business farmers dealing in sugar in
this country. Understand that and be clear about it.
Now, some argue that this amendment would produce savings for
consumers. Well, let me suggest, do not hold your breath. Okay? Do you
really believe a Milky Way bar or a can of Pepsi is going to go down in
price? Give
[[Page H6334]]
me a break. The hard empirical evidence establishes clearly that none
of the savings on cheap, subsidized, foreign sugar will be passed along
to consumers. And neither will increased wages for the workers in my
friend from Illinois' district. Be assured of that. Be assured of that.
So if you support American farmers, if you are concerned about
environmental standards and want to protect American jobs, then vote
against this amendment and support the committee's sugar provision in
the farm bill. It is an easy choice.
Mr. Chairman, make my sugar American. Oppose the Miller-Miller
amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-
Miller amendment. I must say that I oppose this entire bill. I think it
is subsidy run amuck. I did not come here to Congress to reward this
industry or another or pit one industry against another, and I think
that that is what we are doing in this farm bill. It is a chicken-in-
every-pot syndrome. We criticize every other country in the world for
doing this and then we embrace it ourselves.
This is one element of sanity in a very bad bill. I would encourage
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. I am only sorry that it is not cosponsored in addition by
our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller) so it could
be the Miller sugar cube.
This program is one example where we are led to believe that it is
not a problem of subsidization that ends up distorting our markets,
disadvantaging consumers and posing great risks to the environment.
This year, the bizarre system that artificially raises the price of
sugar in the United States, puts import restrictions on the commodity
while at the same time paying farmers to plow over their crop and
allowing the sugar producers to pay back their loans with sugar is not
subsidization, not dealing with the market, I beg to differ.
I would suggest that any econ student 101 armed with the basic
information from the GAO reports could argue persuasively to the
contrary. And all of this for a crop that wreaks havoc on the
environment, especially in the Florida Everglades.
We have heard that there is a disproportionately few number of people
who benefit from this program, and of those the majority are large
scale farmers and producers. We have heard that 40 percent of the
benefits go to 1 percent of the growers, precious little getting to the
small family farm, and they continue to go out of business every year.
We must reassess the myth that somehow this subsidy to corporate sugar
producers is paid for by magic and that there is no risk to the
consumer or the taxpayer.
As my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) pointed out, we
heard that before in 1996. The sugar subsidy we are talking about here
costs American consumers almost $2 billion a year. And that has no
effect on the economy? I beg to differ. I would think that some of my
free market friends would be laughed out of the room if they suggested
it in other areas.
In addition to costing the taxpayer, inflating the cost to two or
sometimes three times the world price, we are, as we have heard, losing
American jobs now, not theoretically, but because it is cheaper to move
the production overseas while the American public is paying a million
dollars a month just to store the excess sugar right now.
As we move into a more globalized economy, we should not be
supporting a backward program that makes it difficult for us to meet
the demands of our agreements with the World Trade Organization and
NAFTA. We have heard people here on this floor call for fairness, and
then we turn around and do something that is goofy.
But I oppose this not just because of the cycle of subsidization, the
limitation on free trade and the stockpiling, my particular interest
has to do with the environment. We have been involved in Congress here
trying to repair decades of damage to the Everglades. The sugar program
has expanded sugar cane production in Florida. What was it in 1960?
50,000 acres. What is it today? Almost 500,000 acres, severely harming
the natural environment of southern Florida, while we in this Chamber
invested $8 billion as a down payment to restore the damage, and we are
still subsidizing an industry that is polluting it with the
phosphorous-laden agricultural runoff.
I would strongly suggest that we break this vicious cycle. The
amendment before us would reduce the damage the sugar program does to
the environment, to our international trade agreements and to the
consumer pocketbook. It would reduce price supports, government quotas,
and bring a greater market orientation to the program, not abolishing
it. It would authorize up to $300 million in savings from the amendment
to go towards conservation and environmental stewardship, which are a
priority to all of us because the Everglades problem is a national
problem.
This is where our priorities need to be, supporting our natural
ecosystems, saving the public money, not monkeying around with the
market. I urge its adoption.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. COMBEST. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller-Miller amendment. It
kicks the sugar farmers when they are down. It is interesting that
since 1996, prices of sugar are down nearly 30 percent. It is also, if
you look at it among the comparative in the world, it is among the most
affordable in the world, 20 percent below the developed country average
and essentially unchanged since 1990.
Who benefits when prices are down? It is certainly not the consumer.
And who suffers? It is certainly the farmer. In reality, history shows
inarguably that users of sugar do not pass their savings on for sugar
and other ingredients to the consumer. Lower commodity prices are just
an opportunity for higher profits at the expense of the farmer. As
evidence, retail prices for sugar, candy, ice cream and other sweetened
products are up, not down, though the prices that are received by the
farmer are substantially down over the last 5 years.
This is an amendment that would have tremendous implications to the
farmer. It does nothing to help the consumer in terms of lower prices
for commodities. I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong opposition
to the Miller-Miller amendment. This amendment is bad public policy for
two simple reasons. First, it would have a devastating effect on sugar
producers, not only in my district, but in districts across 42 other
States as well. These producers generate 370,000 jobs and have an
annual impact of $26 billion per year on the national economy.
Second, it hurts consumers, because without our current sugar policy,
prices for this important commodity would skyrocket. Sugar is an
essential, even strategic ingredient in our Nation's food system, yet
we are the fourth largest importer of sugar in the world. Our family
farmers who grow sugar are globally competitive but cannot compete
against foreign treasuries and predatory trade practices. Maintaining a
reliable supply of sugar at competitive prices for consumers,
responding to unfair foreign trade practices and letting farmers
receive their income from the market and not the government is at the
heart of U.S. sugar policy.
Sugar prices have plummeted over the past 2 years and family farmers
are facing a monumental challenge: Buy the factories that process your
beets or go out of business. Almost half of the remaining sugar beet
factories in the United States are currently for sale to the farmers
who grow sugar beets. In fact, producers in my district are pooling
their resources to buy the Michigan Sugar Company. The producers in my
district need all the help and advantages we can give them.
[[Page H6335]]
Today, we have an opportunity to ensure our farmers global
competitiveness. Given the depressed sugar market and the overall
agricultural economy, it is almost impossible for America's family
farmers and rural bankers to take the next step and form farmer-owned
cooperatives.
{time} 1815
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a classmate from the 103rd
Congress.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I guess the bottom line is that last year the U.S.
Treasury spent a total of $465 million buying sugar and then spent
another $1.4 million a month, a month, to store the 1 million tons of
surplus sugar produced. In other words, the Government basically
encourages growers to overproduce excess sugar, and then purchases this
back at the expense partly of the American taxpayer.
The General Accounting Office estimates that consumers and users pay
an extra $1.9 billion annually in what can be called a hidden tax
because of the sugar program. So every time an American buys a candy
bar or a carton of ice cream or anything that is not sugar-free,
basically they are affected by this policy.
Now, if we go back to the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, as I understood
the act, what it was supposed to do was to be just that, the freedom to
farm. It was meant to gradually decline payments so farmers could wean
themselves from the Government's micro-management and send them on a
path toward free markets. But the Federal Government continues
basically through this arrangement to subsidize sugar producers by
maintaining higher prices than the prices would be.
The sugar program keeps U.S. sugar prices more than twice as high as
the world market, and the Government's involvement, arguably, has
helped force the three-quarters of U.S. sugar refineries that have gone
out of business to close down. So we have had three-quarters of the
refineries close down the last few years. Basically, those refineries
have been moved offshore, so thousands of jobs have been lost in that
sector.
The Miller-Miller amendment, this amendment, rejects government
quotas on marketing; it reduces price supports and brings greater
market orientation to U.S. sugar policy. That is why I support the
amendment. I think it moves us away from corporate welfare.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
(Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Miller-Miller,
or M&M, amendment, to scale back the sugar price support provisions of
the Farm Security Act. In a year in which we have seen major reductions
in taxes to spur our ailing economy, it is only fitting that we scale
back the sugar program.
Clearly the sugar program is a tax. It artificially raises the price
of sugar on consumers, small businesses, and the confectionery
industry. The GAO estimates that the sugar tax costs consumers $1.8
billion annually. Whether you live in the suburbs, the countryside or
in a major metropolitan area, you pay a higher price for this basic
commodity. Unfortunately, because this tax is regressive, the burden of
the sugar program disproportionately impacts the poor.
The sugar tax also hurts small businesses, such as mom and pop
grocery stores and small bakeries. Unfortunately, many of these corner
stores, which serve small urban towns and inner-city neighborhoods,
must pass the cost of high sugar prices on to consumers.
Finally, large U.S. businesses have been hurt by the sugar tax. The
confectionery industry has been placed at a competitive disadvantage
because foreign competitors have access to cheaper sugar. Many of these
industries are being forced to consider relocating abroad to remain
competitive. In Chicago alone, employment in the confectionery sector
is down by 11 percent.
However, the sugar tax is a national problem. As many as 293,000
workers in 20 States depend on the confectionery industry for their
livelihood. The sugar tax must be scaled back to help U.S. consumers,
small businesses and industry.
We are not asking for a repeal of the sugar program, but merely a
fair and equitable reduction in some of its most onerous provisions.
The M&M amendment continues to protect sugar growers without unduly
burdening U.S. consumers and businesses.
To the opponents of this amendment, I say to you that your words are
strong, but your conclusion is wrong. Scale back the sugar price cost
provision.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair
would advise Members that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has
12\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) has
12 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 13
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) has 7
minutes remaining.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am a free-trader, a fair-
trader, an original cosponsor of the bill to grant the President Trade
Promotion Authority, and I am a strong supporter of markets, if
efficient markets exist. But our hard-working sugar producers are
amongst the most cost efficient in the world. In fact, our sugar beet
growers, including over 600 growers in my district in Southwest
Minnesota, are among the lowest-cost producers of sugar in the world.
They are willing to compete on a level playing field, but cannot
compete against foreign governments that encourage excess production
and dump that excess production on the world market. The world dump
market price is well below the world cost to produce sugar and is not
sustainable.
We do need to continue to push for fair trade in sugar. With a level
playing field, I am confident that our sugar producers cannot only
compete, but they can prosper. But if we sacrifice our sugar farmers
now and become ourselves dependent on a dump market price, we will
become dependent on foreign producers. If they stop subsidizing those
foreign producers, we are going to be paying higher prices for sugar
than we are today.
Let us not abandon an efficient, cost-effective industry that is
providing jobs and incomes for our rural areas. I encourage Members to
oppose the Miller-Miller amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this body, are there any Members
here who know more about this farm bill than the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)? The answer
is no. And both of them oppose this particular measure.
The sugar industry supports 420,000 jobs in America. I do not know of
any candy manufacturer or big food chain that has gone out of business
because of the price of sugar.
I wish I could answer all of my colleagues' statements, but I cannot.
Assuredly, they are dead wrong about the Everglades. I do not just fly
there; I live there. The sugar industry has reduced its circumstances
with reference to the Everglades by 55 percent and is ahead of the
Everglades restoration schedule all the way around the board. What you
need to know is, among other things, the sugar industry has contributed
$279 million towards paying off the national debt since 1991. No other
commodity has done that.
I personally am just tired of the misinformation that I continue to
hear. I understand Members' parochial concerns. That is what I have.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and I represent 75 percent of
the sugar cane growing that is done in the United States of America.
But I can tell you this, I have checked a little bit around the world.
Our nearest neighbor, our biggest, nearest neighbor, Mexico, Mexico's
sugar costs 3 cents more today than in America.
I do not understand whether or not these people have traveled
anywhere in
[[Page H6336]]
this world or not, but there is a basic economic principle: find a void
and fill it. That is what other sugar producing countries are waiting
for. Kill the sugar industry, if you will, and you expect that they are
just going to sit on the sidelines? Name me the product that when it
went out of business in America, all of a sudden became cheaper? How
about steel as an example? We are driving our industry offshore.
Now, understand this: as I said, I do not just fly there; I live
there. When I drive down Highway 27 to Pahokee, I see a town choking.
When I go there to Okeechobee, I have tears in my eyes at the pain that
is caused because of the loss of jobs. The same holds true for Belle
Glade and Clewiston. I was in Clewiston on a day when 44 people were
told they did not have their jobs anymore.
Now, I want candy to exist, I want the food chain to exist, and I
want the sugar program to exist; and I want all of us to do right by
each other, rather than kicking each other when we are down.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me respond to a couple of questions that have come
up in this debate. First of all, they talk about the cost of it, and
they say, well, the sugar is lower here, there, it does not cost
anything.
I want to refer once again to the General Accounting Office report,
the GAO. We pay this agency, which is a part of Congress, $400 million
a year to do studies for us. It is not a partisan organization; it is
not a biased organization. It has the experts, or brings in the
consultants, to come up with the best knowledge they can.
In this case it was asked, what is the cost of the sugar program? It
was a very detailed report. They are the ones that came up with the
$1.9 billion cost. So the program really does cost money. You say it
does not cost anything.
My colleague from Florida was talking about jobs. We are concerned
about jobs. But what about the candy companies that are losing jobs?
Here is an article from the Nashville Business Journal about a company,
Bradley Candy Corporation, on June 29 closed their doors and went out
of business.
My colleague from Chicago talks about the companies in Chicago going
out of business. Bob's Candy from Albany, Georgia, makes candy canes.
Hard candy is the one that uses a lot of sugar. They are being driven
offshore for production because the cost of sugar in something like
candy canes just makes it prohibitive to compete.
Let me also make a comment about the trade issue. Many of my
colleagues say they are free-traders. I am a little baffled by my
colleagues that support free trade, especially if you support it in the
grains and soybeans and such. We are big exporters of agricultural
products. That is great.
But the problem we have with our trade negotiators is they go sit at
the table to negotiate trade and say, we want to sell more corn or
wheat to your country, but do not sell us any sugar. We are hurting
ourselves opening up markets for the grains and other products that we
do manufacture so efficiently and produce in this country so
efficiently, because we have to defend sugar. That is the reason those
former Agriculture Secretaries say get rid of the program; we cannot
negotiate more markets for our agricultural products when the one
product we have to defend is sugar.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been
characterized as the M&M amendment. M&M is a good candy. Mantle and
Maris were a good team from the New York Yankees.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to another Yankee
who hits a lot of home runs, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to be associated with the
second best team in New York. It is also my pleasure to join with two-
thirds of the People-Named-Miller caucus here in Congress, actually
over two-thirds, because the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) is a pretty big fellow.
I have to say to my colleagues, I support agriculture programs. I
voted for every agriculture bill, and I believe it is very important
for coalitions to be formed in this body between urban Members, who
probably are only consuming agriculture product, and their rural
counterparts, because it is an important part of the stream. But just
as my colleagues on all sides of the aisle have demanded accountability
from urban programs, I think it is fair that we demand the same
accountability here.
This amendment does not seek to end the program, simply to amend the
program. I have to tell Members that I do not mind the fact that is a
$465 million program.
{time} 1830
That, to me, is not offensive. What is offensive is the additional
cost to the taxpayers that are hidden.
The gentleman from Florida just talked about the $1.9 billion
annually that consumers pay for this program. That is putting aside the
$1.4 million a month to store the sugar that is purchased and then held
in essentially escrow to be paid back against the debts as part of this
program.
But I have to say that one of the things that leads me to be so
strongly in favor of the Miller and Miller amendment is the experience
of the Madeline Chocolate Novelties Company in Rockaway, New York in my
district. It is not a mammoth company by any stretch of the
imagination. They employ about 500 people. But the reason they do not
employ more people, they say, is their inability to export more of
their products. They do not manufacture chocolate, they create novelty
chocolate products like the kind we customarily would get at Easter and
in my district at Passover. But they estimate there is about a 10
percent difference in the price of the chocolate that they buy because
of this program and this program alone. They travel around to
international trade shows, they contact me for help with international
export programs.
The fact of the matter is this program and this program alone has
meant jobs in my district.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself 10 seconds to comment
on the GAO report. If we look at page 55 where they conclude the
validity of the report, it says, ``The results are, therefore, suspect
and should not be quoted authoritatively.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp).
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Sugar is an essential and even strategic ingredient in our Nation's
food supply, yet we are the fourth largest importer of sugar in the
world. The United States sugar industry is in trouble. I know firsthand
because I represent thousands of family farmers and factory workers who
grow and process sugar beets in Michigan. Sugar prices have plummeted
over the past 2 years, and family farmers are facing a monumental
challenge.
Almost half of the remaining sugar beet factories in the United
States are currently for sale, for sale to the farmers who grow sugar
beets. Given the depressed sugar market and the overall agricultural
economy, our family farmers cannot form farmer-owned cooperatives. This
is an industry that is the very backbone of the rural economy. We must
not and cannot let it collapse.
The Miller amendment will end any opportunity for these farmers and
factory workers to be reliable and competitive suppliers to America's
consumers. The Miller amendment will cut the supply lines of an
essential ingredient and deliver another economic blow to America's
struggling rural economy.
Vote against the Miller amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It is
kind of hard for me to understand why we keep having this debate every
year, because there is really no reason for it.
I represent an area where, along with the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Pomeroy), we produce the most sugar in our region of anyplace in
the country. Small farmers, 200, 300 acres in sugar beets. It has been
the one crop that is making us a little bit of money, although that is
getting thinner and thinner every year.
One of the reasons, frankly, is because of all of the free traders
that created this problem, because of these
[[Page H6337]]
trade agreements. If my colleagues think that this world market or this
so-called price is a real price, you got another thing to consider. It
is a dump price. You need to get out in some other parts of the world
and find out what is going on.
I had a chance to go to Romania and they are next, of course, to
Western Europe. The Europeans have a 50 percent higher price support on
beets or on sugar than we do. So what happened? The World Bank went in
there, Romania needed money, and they said, we will give you the money
if you get rid of your agriculture subsidies. They did. Romania had
12,000 sugar beet farmers. Today they have zero. They had 36 plants;
today they have 11. The Europeans own those plants and the Europeans
ship every bit of sugar into Romania to be processed in those plants,
and nothing is being produced in Romania.
That is what is going to happen in the United States if we pass this
amendment and we get rid of the sugar program. Do not kid yourselves.
This is not a level playing field, this is not a fair deal, and we will
turn this industry over to other countries and put our people out of
business. It makes zero sense. Defeat this amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio, let me make a couple of comments, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
The sugar program is not being eliminated. Under the Miller-Miller
amendment, the sugar program will be here 10 years from today just like
it is now. All we are talking about doing is lowering the price from 18
cents to 17 cents; one penny, 6 percent change. The world price, as of
October 2, if we look in the Wall Street Journal or any of the
financial pages, is 6\1/2\ cents. Now, I agree; that probably is a dump
price, and I would not want that price in the United States. But we are
only talking about 18 cents down to 17 cents.
We do have requirements and other laws on the books, and I fully
support them, to keep subsidized products from coming into the United
States. France subsidizes their sugar production. And we should not
allow France to sell sugar to the United States, and they do not. So if
there is a company that subsidizes it, we keep them out.
One of the largest sugar producers in the world is Australia. They
have a free market on sugar. They sell it around the world for 6.5
cents. Of course, when they sell it to the United States, we pay them
18 cents. That is even the dumber part of the program.
So the fact is there is a dump price that I agree is like 6.5 cents,
but all we are talking about is going to 17 cents.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
American consumers essentially are being ripped off and the time has
come for Congress to finally do something about it.
The sugar program guarantees domestic cane sugar and beet sugar
producers a minimum price for sugar which, at times, during the past
year was about three times the world market price. The sugar program
supports domestic sugar prices by offering loans to sugar producers at
a rate established by law, 18 cents per pound for raw cane sugar, 22.9
cents per pound for refined beet sugar, with sugar serving as
collateral for these loans. The sugar program keeps the price of sugar
artificially inflated and above the world market price.
In 1998, the General Accounting Office found that the Federal sugar
program cost American consumers more than $1.9 billion, almost $2
billion, up from $500 million from the $1.4 billion inflated cost cited
in a similar 1993 GAO study.
It is time for Congress to eliminate this particularly egregious form
of corporate welfare for the sugar-producing industry. American
consumers essentially get hit twice. Their hard-earned tax dollars are
being used to fund a wasteful program, which, in turn, results in
artificially higher prices of sugar and sugar products on the grocery
self. Any way we look at it, it is bad business. Their tax dollars are
being wasted, and then they are paying higher prices at the grocers, so
they get hit twice.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Instead of the Buy America Act, you could call this the Buy Anything
But America Act subjecting us to dumped sugar. Instead of Correct the
Trade Balance Act, you could say Compound the Trade Balance Act. That
is what Miller-Miller is all about. It takes the one commodity where we
actually consume more than we grow and wants to throw it open to world-
dumped sugar shorting our markets.
Instead of a stimulus package, you could call this amendment the
recession package, because it would surely bring recession to those
areas producing sugar. That is 420,000 U.S. jobs, contributing $26.2
billion in the economy.
They call it a consumer bill; actually, it is a candy bar
manufacturing bill. We have seen a 30 percent drop in the price for
refined beet sugar. Have you seen cheaper candy bars? Absolutely not.
This is about candy bar manufacturer profit line, not about a deal for
consumers.
We have a program that works. We have a program that has available
sugar at below the price available in the developed countries. We have
price stability for this essential component for groceries. We need to
keep the sugar program and defeat the Miller-Miller amendment.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say, a penny for your thoughts. It
seems like this program, this one commodity is always singled out on
this House floor as some egregious program.
Now, if we tied the Miller-Miller amendment to the price of candy and
forced them to reduce their prices for every penny we reduce the sugar
product, then maybe I would understand there is a rationale behind this
argument.
Now, I associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings), my good friend, who talks about families in his
district. Now, some use this program and attack certain families that
may be successful and they hold them up as examples of corporate waste.
Well, folks, we can use that in almost anything we do on this House
floor: single out one individual and say that is the bad actor or the
bad apple. We ignore the fact that there are thousands of people in my
district.
Now, I know when you hear Mark Foley's name, you think of Palm Beach
and Worth Avenue. But let me take you to Belle Glade, Clewiston,
Pahokee, Canal Point, where people get up every morning and go to the
farms and work hard 5, 6 in the morning to harvest a crop that is
difficult and is burdensome, but they bring it to market. Then all of a
sudden they turn on their TV set to the government that they pay taxes
for and to and hear people demeaning their way of life, their product
that they produce, and act like somehow, we have some communistic
cartel operating under the auspices of the Federal Government.
Now, I take exception. I invite you to come to my communities; and I
invite you to meet the farmers, those individual farmers who farm 100
acres, 50 acres, 20 acres, to try to make a living for themselves and
their families.
Please defeat this amendment and let us get this over with. We have
done this for 7 years, and 7 years we have beaten them back. Help us do
it again.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Look, this is our annual fight. We are all used to it. It is a fight
between special interests, on one side the candy manufacturers, and on
the other side the farmers of America and the countries that we support
in other parts of the world. I think when one has a choice, go with the
farmers. They are the ones that are farming the land and harvesting the
product. In fact, when we buy the sugar at our price, we are also
helping, our neighboring countries; we are helping the people of El
Salvador who suffered from Hurricane
[[Page H6338]]
Mitch. We are helping the other Central American countries, and our
friends in the Caribbean, because we pay a much better price than the
world market, and we allow these countries then to get a better sugar
price and pass that on to their workers. We also help some African
nations by importing their sugar.
If you vote against this amendment, you are not only helping the
farmers of America, you are helping the foreign farmers that our
foreign aid programs are also trying to help in a much better way than
just doling out money.
This is an amendment that we argue against every year, and it should
be continually defeated.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mark
Twain said there are lies, there are damn lines, and then there are
statistics. It has been interesting to listen to the debate. We have
heard a lot of statistics, and I am going to share some of my own. I am
one of the few Members that serves on both the Committee on Agriculture
as well as the Committee on the Budget. We have heard this term
``subsidy'' thrown around so freely here tonight as we talk the sugar
program.
I would like to just read from the Economic Research Service put out
by the USDA, their latest report, the Agriculture Outlook, September
2001. This is what the sugar program costs in 1993. We had a net profit
to the Federal taxpayers of $35 million. In 1994, we had a net profit
of $24 million. In 1995, the taxpayers made $3 million. In 1996, it was
$63 million; and the next year, it was $34 million. The next year, we
made a profit of $30 million. In 1999, we made $51 million. It is true
in fiscal year 2000 it cost the Federal taxpayers $465 million.
Now, that was not the fault of the sugar beet growers or the sugar
cane growers, it was not the fault of the farmers in the United States,
it was the fault of failed trade policies.
{time} 1845
It was the fault of the Federal Government of not doing its job of
policing the system.
Do not blame the farmers for our failures by the bureaucrats here in
Washington. That is what this amendment is all about. This has been a
very successful program. We are a net importer of sugar. We need the
sugar industry. We need predictable prices.
Defeat the Miller-Miller amendment. Let us vote for the underlying
bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have been taking a couple of notes here today. We
talk about the sugar program; but Mr. Chairman, we are really talking
about people, because sugar is people. Yes, there are differences that
we have with one another, but I hardly think it is worth anything to
characterize each other or our positions in such apocalyptic terms. I
think it makes more sense to try and think: What is it that we want to
accomplish?
The proponents say that there are trade barriers, but what we are
really talking about here is whether or not we want to benefit from the
importation of slave-driven wages in the rest of the world that
provides this so-called cheap sugar. Why should we apologize, whether
it is in Florida or whether it is in Hawaii, because our workers are
the best-paid agricultural workers who produce the most?
The way I learned this economics that I am always being preached to
about is that if one works hard and is the best producer and is the
most efficient, one is supposed to be rewarded, not castigated. Yet,
that is what this would do.
Let us remember what this particular amendment is all about. It is
not about the program as such, it is to lower the price 1 cent. I can
tell the Members, if they lower the price 1 cent, they will drive the
producers out of business because their margin of profit, which the
proponents said was only 5 percent, this is just lowering it 5 percent.
So if we lower it 5 percent, we are going to drive these folks out of
business because their margin of profit is not anything like the candy
manufacturers.
If the workers in Illinois or anyplace were going to get the benefit
of this, I could see, okay, let us work on this. But they are not. It
is just going to be for the profit that is being taken.
So I want to indicate to the Members that we do not just have to look
to the free sugar in the restaurants that is out there, but I ask
Members to do this. In my right hand is a Diet Coke. In my left hand is
a Coca-Cola Classic. Now, I got this from the cloakroom on the
Democratic side of the aisle; and I guarantee Members, if I go to the
cloakroom on the Republican side of the aisle, both of these cans of
Coca-Cola cost the same amount of money. One has the sugar in it and
one does not have the sugar in it, and they are taking the money, the
same price for both cans of Coca-Cola, and they are taking the American
public the same way.
Mr. Chairman, I return the rest of my time and rest my case.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the
gentleman, no sugar is in soft drinks in the United States. The price
of sugar is so expensive that we use corn syrup. Sugar is not used in
the products in the United States; it was driven away from the market.
The more we put up the price of sugar, the less uses we will find. We
will find an alternative. That is the reason corn syrup has been used
as a substitute for soft drinks, so we will not find that in soft
drinks, sadly, in the United States. It is used in the other countries
in the world where they have a free market in sugar.
We keep referring to candy. That is just one of the uses for sugar,
and they use a lot of it. It is in so many different products we use. I
have a colleague who has a company that produces medicine. They have
cough drops. Cough drops have a lot of sugar in them. This company
manufactures them in England because they cannot bring them to the
United States for production because of the cost of sugar, they say.
My colleagues started to discredit the General Accounting Office:
``Why are we paying them $400 million to do all these studies?'' In the
case of this one, that is the $1.9 billion. That is the most
authoritative source we have. They contracted out a lot of this work
with a professor from the Department of Agriculture, one from Iowa
State University, a professor from the University of Maryland, a former
assistant professor of economics at USDA, a number of other professors
from the University of Florida, from the University of California,
Davis, from North Carolina State University. They all participated in
this study that came up with the $1.9 billion number.
The Department of Agriculture would not participate in this, did not
want to get involved in it, and they want to discredit it, which is
really sad. But of course, we have to remember, the Department of
Agriculture has hundreds of people over there trying to manage this
program, and it is a jobs program there. So what we are doing is the
cost, which is no net cost, even though we have to buy and store all
this sugar, we have hundreds of employees that have to kind of maintain
this program and manage the imports allowed in this program.
So yes, it is a $1.9 billion cost to all the consumers of America,
and consumers are taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I know we do not pay much attention to Secretaries,
former Secretaries, newspapers, and all of those things; but I just
happened to be looking. I saw where Jack Block, 1981 to 1986, Secretary
of Agriculture; Clayton Yetter, 1989 to 1991, Secretary of Agriculture;
Dan Glickman, 1995 to 2001; the Boston Herald; The Baltimore Sun; USA
Today; Crain's Chicago Business Newsroom; the Sun Sentinel; The Miami
Herald; and the current Secretary of Agriculture have all expressed
concern about the subsidies.
One of the papers suggested that of all of the subsidies, the sugar
subsidy is the worst. As a matter of fact, it says, ``Who benefits?''
That is in USA Today. ``A handful of sugar growers and processors--and
the politicians
[[Page H6339]]
whose campaigns they fund to the tune of $1.5 million a year.''
It says, ``The sugar crowd is small but generous.''
Then The Baltimore Sun says that Domino has lost money for 9 months
because they paid just about the same for raw sugar that they end up
selling the processed sugar for. Therefore, they are not making a
profit.
The Boston Herald said ``It would be better to kill this outrageous
giveaway program. But the Miller-Miller amendment may be the only
reform effort on the table. It deserves the support of all New England
representatives.'' But I would go further than that, and I would say
that it deserves the support of all Representatives, because once
again, when it was in vogue, when it was needed, we needed it then.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are going to discredit any Government
employees. I yield myself 10 seconds to quote the career USDA analyst
used in describing the GAO report: ``. . . naive, inconsistent,
inadequate, a puzzlement, inflammatory, unprofessional, not well
documented, incomplete, and unrealistic.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I was just going to quote the same language the USDA
used in describing the GAO report.
I agree with what my friend said earlier, the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Osborne), when he said ``I do not understand why the sugar beet
growers in Idaho and Nebraska and other States ought to be paying for
the restoration of the Florida Everglades,'' as much as I like the
Florida Everglades.
But let me talk for just a minute if I can about Bob's Candies,
because Bob's has been mentioned several time here. Bob's came and
testified before our committee. They said they had to build a plant in
Mexico because they could get sugar cheaper there than they could get
it in the United States. They could not compete here in the United
States.
I found that ironic because the retail price of sugar in Mexico is
more expensive than it is in the United States. So I thought, there
must be some other reason that they are going to Mexico, labor costs or
something else.
But then he explained it to me. He said that in Mexico, the Mexican
government will allow them to buy the world dump price of sugar, make
the candy, and then export it to the United States; but they cannot
sell that candy that is made with dump price sugar in Mexico. Do
Members not find that rather ironic?
Mr. Chairman, there is not a free market out there in sugar. I am
unwilling to sacrifice our farmers, our sugar producers, on the alter
of free enterprise when there is no free market in sugar. Maybe if we
had a free market, we could look at competition that really works.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the
chairman one more time for the great job they have done on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing about farmers all day on this
floor. I have heard enough bad information to make me want to dip a
snuff.
All day we have been hearing about how bad large farmers are. Now we
are hearing that not only large farmers are bad, but small farmers are
bad if they produce sugar, and if they produce sugar in South Florida,
they are absolutely terrible.
The fact is, American sugar farmers are just like every other farmers
in America. They do a great job. They know what they are doing. They
are the most efficient that there is.
We cannot support replacing efficient American farmers with
subsidized foreign sugar. The gentleman from Idaho that preceded me is
absolutely right, there is no such thing as a free market in sugar.
That is an idea that will never occur in my lifetime, and very likely
not in the next 200 years. It is the most political commodity that
there is on the planet.
The American people get a good deal for their sugar program. They pay
20 percent less for sugar than consumers in most other developed
countries. In terms of minutes of work to buy one pound of sugar, our
sugar is about the most affordable in the entire world. The retail
price of sugar has risen less than two pennies per pound over the past
10 years. It would be foolish for us to force the production of sugar
from this country offshore in an effort to just do more damage to
American agriculture.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, this has been farm day on the floor of the United
States Congress, a topic that we do not discuss enough.
But in particular, it has been ironic that we have had people from
different regions of this country try to pit one commodity against
another; that we have had people who may have supported the previous
amendment in the name of small farms come down here to try to put small
farms and small farmers out of business.
There are a lot of small farmers who grow sugar in Florida and around
the country. I know them. I have met them. I have walked on their land.
I have heard their problems.
For us to trade away their jobs to a Third World country that uses
labor practices that have been banned here for a century, chemicals
that have been banned here for decades, to put on our food to ship to
our children and our public at the expense of our industry and our jobs
is obscene.
There has been a lot made of the environmental impacts. I know an
awful lot about that. I helped write the Everglades restudy bill in the
Florida legislature. The Florida sugar industry has reduced their
pollutants by 73 percent, three times what the law asked them to do,
and ahead of schedule. Nobody else has done that, not the national
parks, not the tribes, not the water management districts, and
certainly not the City of Miami, the City of Fort Lauderdale, Dade
County, Broward County, and all of the other folks who are a part of
that larger problem.
The sugar industry is doing their part to be a good citizen, to be
good stewards of the land. I urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
{time} 1900
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, the rarest of all beasts came to this floor
completely undecided on this bill. I submitted a bill in the last
Congress to completely eliminate price supports for sugar, but after
careful consideration about this, well, I think of two kids, my son who
goes into the store and always asks for candy. A Mars bar costs 75
cents in the District of Columbia. It costs 50 cents in Oregon. A 5-
pound bag of sugar costs $2.19 here in the District and $2.25 back home
in Oregon. I just do not think that those savings will be passed on to
my son.
I guess I just think of these little kids I have seen in Fiji working
in those cane fields and they are never going to have a chance to have
a better life unless we have a viable sugar industry here in America.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, but I am struck by
this extraordinary doctrine we have of the exceptionalism of
agriculture, because Members who are ardent supporters of free
enterprise and keeping our markets free and keeping the government out
of the markets, and not subsidizing and not regulating apparently, have
read all of those economics books better than I, and they have found
the secret footnote that says none of this applies to agriculture.
Now we have a new element in the doctrine of agricultural
exceptionalism. Member after Member has gotten up and said we must
protect American workers from the unfair and degrading conditions
overseas. Let us see how they vote on Fast Track, Mr. Chairman.
We are about to get legislation that will be the grandparent of
enabling competition of precisely the sort that
[[Page H6340]]
Members have been here denouncing. I will be noticing how many Members
who have invoked the unfairness of international competition
unregulated to justify the sugar program. I will be looking to see how
many of them will find that that was really just an exception and they
will vote to, in fact, to subject the whole rest of the American
economy to precisely what they have been deploring.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if we want to look at something, look at
how often we bemoan the fact that we are so dependent upon an oil
cartel to supply 60 percent of the oil that is critical to this
Nation's energy supplies. Then I want us to think about the fact that
the international sugar cartel is a lot smaller than the international
oil cartel, much smaller. This amendment plays right into their hands.
This amendment drives further farmers out of business in Louisiana
and across this country and makes room for the foreign cartel to dump
its cheap sugar into America.
When do they do it? They do it after they have sold all the sugar
they can sell and they dump what is left, the surplus, at below cost
rates into this country to kill off our farmers. What happens as a
result? Our farmers are gone in Louisiana. My dad drove a cane truck. I
know them very intimately. I know these small farmers and how hard they
work. They are out of business and all of a sudden we are dependent
now, not just for oil, but we are dependent for sugar, too, on a cartel
out there. Would that not be great?
This amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is
particularly pernicious this year. It not only taxes the sugar farmers
out of existence, but then it makes sure they will have to forfeit
their sugar by taking away the program that saves us from government
forfeitures. What a nasty amendment. This thing needs to be defeated.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to commend and congratulate the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Miller) for crafting this amendment. I also want to commend the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture for putting
together a comprehensive package that speaks in many ways to the
agricultural needs of our country.
But the sugar subsidy, in contrast to all of the other farm
subsidies, the sugar program imposes most of its costs on consumers,
not taxpayers. The sugar program in reality is a food tax, because all
of the food items that we purchase that use sugar, because of the
inflated cost, it means that we are paying more. The Miller-Miller
amendment does not wipe out the subsidy. It simply seeks to reduce it,
to put it down to a level that does not hurt the consumer, does not
hurt the workers and does not hurt American manufacturers.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of us to look carefully and look
hard and know that when we vote for Miller-Miller, we are doing the
right thing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just quickly a few comments. Earlier we had comments about the 17
sugar growers. I would refer every one of my colleagues to the current
edition of the Forbes Magazine to see the 400 richest people in the
world and look at how many have done very well in the sugar industry in
the United States. Take a look at the CEO salaries of Coalition for
Sugar Reform. I cannot believe some Members have the gall to come here
and to complain about the sugar industry in the United States.
We have 400,000 jobs on the line. There are 400,000 producers. If
this amendment passes, they will go out of business in the United
States because we cannot lower the prices anymore to producers in the
United States and stay in business. That is the given fact of this
amendment.
We talk about the consumer, American consumers have got the best
bargain in the world with the exception of Canada and Australia. Canada
and Australia consumers get a better deal at the sugar counter than we
do. But take a look at the advantage that Australia and Canada have in
the value of the dollar. When we talk about the free market and the
free enterprise system, if we are having to compete, whether it is in
sugar or airplanes or whatever we are in, if we have to compete, in
this case with sugar, and Canada being the largest importer of sugar
into the United States, they have roughly a 50 percent advantage. That
means where our growers are getting rounded off 20 cents, they are not,
it is less than that, the Canadian sugar grower gets 30 cents just
because the value of the dollar.
We cannot compete with that. Take a look at the facts. Wholesale
prices of sugar have dropped by 30 percent since 1990 to 2000. Since
1996, a 28 percent drop. But has any product that uses sugar dropped?
The answer is no. The price of everything that uses sugar goes up. We
have been through this argument every year, every year. We seem to have
a dedicated agenda on the part of some who use agricultural products,
that the only way to benefit the consumer is to drive our producers out
of business. I respectfully disagree with that.
Take a look at the bill we have. We recognize we have a surplus of
sugar. We recognize the current program has not worked and we change
it. But we do not change it in a manner in which we destroy the
producers in the United States. We manage to continue to be able to
have, well, not a level playing field, but at least give them a chance.
If the Miller-Miller amendment passes, producers in America will have
no chance. Vote against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has 5\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The Miller-Miller amendment is just a modest change in the sugar
program. We are not trying to eliminate it like we debated back in
1996, and that is really what I wish we would eliminate, but we are
only talking about a one-penny change, dropping the price by about 5
percent.
Now, I have my colleagues talk about, oh, the consumers do not ever
gain from this, and I keep referring to this GAO report. Let us also
look at all the organizations that support the Miller-Miller amendment.
What consumer agreement supports the sugar program? None. The
Consumer Federation of America supports the amendment. The Consumers
for World Trade support the Miller-Miller amendment, and Consumers
Union supports the Miller-Miller amendment. They support it because the
consumers are the one that get the bad deal off the sugar program.
Let me also talk about some of the other organizations, and many of
them are going to be rating this vote, that is, scoring it and saying
how important the vote is to them. For business groups, we have a lot
of the users of it and good government groups. We have Citizens Against
Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform,
Citizens for a Sound Economy, Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Environmental, people say, oh, it really does not hurt the
environment. Why do National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, The League
of Conservation Voters, Everglades Trust, Friends of the Earth, World
Wildlife Fund all support this amendment?
As I said earlier, three former Secretaries of Agriculture, one
Democrat, a former colleague of ours, Dan Glickman under President
Clinton, again, Secretary Clayton Yuetter under President Bush, and
Secretary Jack Block under President Ronald Reagan, all signed a letter
concluding, and let me read a couple of quotes of it. Whatever its
merits in the past, the sugar program in its present form no longer
serves its intended public policy goal. It should be reformed.
They go on, there appears to be no reasonable way to sustain the
present sugar program. Defending this import restrictive program is
increasing the untenable for our trade negotiators. This conflict harms
the interest of other farmers, ranchers and processes. Reform of the
sugar program is long overdue, and they encourage the support for the
changes outlined in this amendment.
[[Page H6341]]
This is a simple, common sense, reasonable and modest amendment. We
have not had a full debate on this issue since 1996. We were promised
things in 1996 like, oh, it will not cost us anything, and then last
year we bought the $465 million worth of sugar. Are we supposed to
believe it is not going to cost us again when in the year 2000, we
bought $465 million worth of sugar and we are a million and a half
dollars a month just to store sugar we do not even know what to do
with? So come on, it is going to cost us because it cost us last year.
We are overproducing sugar, and we need to bring some reasonable
common sense to this. So I encourage my colleagues to support the
Miller-Miller amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) has 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The proponents of the M and M amendment, when they talk about sending
jobs to Mexico, have the right string but they have the wrong yo-yo. It
is not the sugar program that is causing the job loss to Mexico. This
is what is causing those losses.
American wages are 25 times higher here than they are in Mexico.
American energy costs are five times higher than they are in Mexico.
American tax burden is at least seven times higher. American protection
for workers and the environment, water and air quality is much higher
than it is in Mexico. Those are the reasons that we are losing jobs to
Mexico, not the sugar program.
Defeat the M and M amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am one of a few Republicans in Congress
who represent an urban area, yet when it came time to end the broken
system of social welfare, I voted for it and I'm proud to say that
welfare reform has been a tremendous success in my district and across
the nation.
We did the heavy lifting in 1996. Now it's time we got the rich
farmers off welfare. There aren't a whole lot of farmers who are much
better off than the sugar producers who've made a living--no, a
killing!--off of government subsidies and production controls.
I think Karl Marx, even on a sugar high, couldn't have come up with
anything as market-distorting and anti-competitive as the sugar program
in this Farm bill. This legislation rolls back the modest reforms of
1996 by reimposing federal limits on how much sugar can be grown and
sold in the United States. I can't think of a single other crops where
we do this.
To truly appreciate this government hand-out, consider that last year
the federal government spent nearly half a billion dollars to buy one
million tons of surplus sugar. The government continues to spend $1.4
million a month to store it and the Department of Agriculture estimates
the program will cost taxpayers at least $1.6 billion over the 10-year
life of the Farm Bill.
This sugar program is one of the sweetest deals in America--but only
if you're one of the lucky few. You don't hear much about the family
farm during debate on this amendment, because the largest 1 percent of
sugar growers claim 40 percent of the program's benefits.
But if my colleagues don't care about taxpayers' dollars or family
farms, perhaps they'll care about our environment. The government's
subsidies of the sugar industry are extremely harmful to the Florida
Everglades. I hope everyone recognizes the irony here. Even as we spend
billions of dollars on repairing the Everglades, we're spending
billions more to subsidize a sugar industry that is responsible for so
much of the damage to this area.
Mr. Chairman, if we can't repeal it, let's at least restore some
sanity to one of the government's worst programs. This is a very modest
amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Miller/Miller Amendment.
The Miller/Miller Amendment is an attempt to destroy what remains of
sugar production in the state of Texas and throughout the nation. In
order to understand the damage that the Miller/Miller Amendment may
cause, it is important to understand the purpose of the U.S. Sugar
policy.
First, Mr. Speaker, our U.S. Sugar policy ensures that foreign
predatory trade practices--such as export subsidies, marketing
monopolies and cartels, high internal supports, and high import
barriers--do not drive efficient American sugar farmers out of business
and threaten the reliability and stability to American consumers.
Also, U.S. sugar policy ensures that jobs in rural America are not
sent over seas, and that American consumers are not held captive by
unreliable foreign suppliers of subsidized sugar.
Governments of all foreign sugar-producing countries intervene in
their production, consumption and or trade of sugar, which makes sugar
one of the most heavily subsidized and distorted markets in the world.
The Miller/Miller Amendment is an attempt to give our foreign
competitors an advantage that they have not deserved. We should leave
our current sugar policy intact until other countries make substantial
changes in the subsidies that they provide to their sugar producers.
The U.S. sugar policy saves jobs and keeps Americans working--in this
economy we should do no less.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support today of
the Miller-Miller amendment to reform the sugar subsidy program. I want
to commend both gentlemen for their tireless efforts to reform this
program, which has been a raw deal for the American taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not eliminate the sugar subsidy
program, which I admit I would wholeheartedly support. It does,
however, take the modest step of providing some reforms to the existing
program in an attempt to eliminate the waste and abuse associated with
it. Further, this amendment would prevent any new sugar bailout
programs from being created.
Last year, the government spent $465 million to buy a million tons of
sugar, and then spent an additional $1.4 million a month to store it.
That is money that could well have been spent on our nation's critical
needs, such as providing education to children with disabilities or
medical care to our veterans, or to develop next-generation weapons
needed by our men and women in uniform.
Instead, as a result of the current sugar subsidy program, we
provided a sweet deal for a small number of sugar growers. The existing
program pays out 40 percent of Federal subsidies to a select 1 percent
of the nation's sugar growers.
Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen ably and concisely summarized the
current sugar subsidy program in his August 29, 2001 column. ``Sure,
it's corporate welfare,'' he said. ``Sure, it's freeloading. Sure it
jacks up consumer prices.'' And, surely, I'd add, it's time to stop
taxpayers from getting a raw deal, and fix this broken program.
I strongly support the Miller-Miller amendment, and encourage my
colleagues to do the same. The farm bill is a sweet deal for most of
our farmers; let's at least put an end to this expensive, unnecessary
bailout program.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 239, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 367]
AYES--177
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baldwin
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Bass
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Clement
Collins
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hart
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kolbe
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McHugh
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Ney
Northup
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
[[Page H6342]]
Reynolds
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Souder
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thomas
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Upton
Velazquez
Wamp
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--239
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bishop
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chambliss
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doolittle
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Ganske
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moran (KS)
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Schaffer
Sessions
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--14
Burton
Callahan
Dicks
Gibbons
Hansen
Houghton
Istook
LaFalce
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Murtha
Serrano
Visclosky
Wexler
{time} 1935
Messrs. HUNTER, McDERMOTT, HAYES, FATTAH, and KUCINICH changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. HART, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. HEFLEY, and Mr. MOORE changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 367, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 367, I was
detained in a traffic accident. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Committee
will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht) assumed the chair.
____________________