[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 132 (Thursday, October 4, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6342-H6346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in consultation between the two sides, I would like to 
tell Members what we are attempting to do in resolution of the bill 
that is before the House at this time.
  There is a unanimous consent that is being drafted, and at some point 
when it is completely drafted and cleared on both sides, we would 
propose the unanimous consent in the full House. Basically this is what 
we would like to do this evening, if we can.
  The next series of votes will occur around 10 p.m., and those will be 
the final votes of the evening. It is our intent to continue to try to 
complete the bill tonight, and any votes that would be remaining would 
be voted on in the morning when the House reconvenes.
  Under the agreement, there are a number of amendments that we think 
we will have realistic time agreements on, and we can deal with those 
amendments in fairly short order. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) has an amendment, and he has graciously agreed to cut back the 
time and put a 45-minute limit on it and vote that amendment tonight.
  In addition, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has an amendment 
to the Sanders amendment, and he has requested 10 minutes on the Obey 
amendment to the Sanders amendment. That would be included in the 
unanimous consent agreement. The anticipation is that the vote on the 
Sanders amendment would lead us to 10 p.m. We would have a series of 
votes at that time, including that amendment. And from that time, 
Members would be free from voting this evening; and we would continue 
with debate.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, there is also a Vitter amendment, but we 
can include that in our time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, we have consulted on both sides. We will 
continue beyond 10:00 with the intention of completing the bill tonight 
and having the final votes in the morning.
  Mr. Chairman, we will proceed with debate as we refine the unanimous 
consent agreement.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Walsh

  Mr. WALSH. 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 No. 63 offered by Mr. Walsh:
       At the end of chapter 1 of subtitle C of title I (page 75, 
     after line 17), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 147. STUDY OF NATIONAL DAIRY POLICY.

       (a) Study Required.--Not later than April 30, 2002, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to Congress a 
     comprehensive economic evaluation of the potential direct and 
     indirect effects of the various elements of the national 
     dairy policy, including an examination of the effect of the 
     national dairy policy on--
       (1) farm price stability, farm profitability and viability, 
     and local rural economies in the United States;
       (2) child, senior, and low-income nutrition programs, 
     including impacts on schools and institutions participating 
     in the programs, on program recipients, and other factors; 
     and
       (3) the wholesale and retail cost of fluid milk, dairy 
     farms, and milk utilization.
       (b) National Dairy Policy Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``national dairy policy'' means the dairy policy of the 
     United States as evidenced by the following policies and 
     programs:
       (1) Federal Milk Marketing Orders.
       (2) Interstate dairy compacts (including proposed compacts 
     described in H.R. 1827 and S. 1157, as introduced in the 
     107th Congress).
       (3) Over-order premiums and State pricing programs.
       (4) Direct payments to milk producers.
       (5) Federal milk price support program.
       (6) Export programs regarding milk and dairy products, such 
     as the Dairy Export Incentive Program.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
reserves a point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It requires

[[Page H6343]]

the Secretary of Agriculture to study the direct and indirect impacts 
of the various elements of our Nation's dairy policy, including an 
examination of its effects on farm price stability, farm profitability 
and viability, and local rural economics.
  Earlier the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) offered an 
amendment that would have allowed States to join together in regional-
based State cooperations to develop a promising solution to the 
continuing dairy crisis, all at no cost to the government.
  Considering the level of interest and support for developing policy 
that protects both farmers and consumers, I believe it is useful to 
study the many existing and proposed dairy policies. The result of my 
amendment would be a comprehensive economic evaluation of programs such 
as the Federal milk market orders, Federal milk price supports, export 
programs and over-order premiums and pricing programs. The study would 
also require an examination of the dairy compacts, similar to those 
included in the amendment offered today by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  I strongly believe that the action of 25 States, and a sound, proven 
record, is enough for this Congress to base and set policy on, but 
there are still Members who need more evidence. Therefore, I am 
confident that a study will help this body recognize the value of 
regionally based solutions to the continuing national dairy crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, as we have seen in recent weeks, there 
certainly is an effort to develop a national policy, and it has been 
somewhat elusive. I understand the gentleman's concerns. We appreciate 
the gentleman offering this amendment, and I would be happy to accept 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin withdraws his 
point of order.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1945


            Amendment No. 30 Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. 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 No. 30 offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon:
       In section 925 (page ______, beginning line ______), insert 
     ``(other than organically grown caneberries)'' after 
     ``caneberries'' each place it appears.

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, under existing regulations, the 
Federal Government recognizes organic agricultural products as 
different from those grown conventionally. This distinction should be 
respected when considering the institution of a marketing order for 
caneberries.
  Produce that is organically grown is strictly segregated from produce 
that is conventionally grown and is labeled as a distinctly separate 
product in the marketplace. Often there are entirely different venues 
where organic goods are made available to the consumer. Oversupply 
problems do not plague organic growers. Growers have cultivated niche 
markets that are different from markets for conventional grown 
caneberries.
  A Federal market order system that does not allow an exemption for 
organic caneberries would place and unnecessary and unwelcome 
impediment on a small but healthy sector of American commerce.
  It is my understanding after talking with the chairman that my 
amendment would be setting a precedent, and an exemption could be 
achieved through the rules process within the AMS. I respect the 
chairman's concerns and, therefore, I withdraw my amendment.
  However, I ask for his and the committee's commitment in addressing 
organic growers concerns in relation to the new Federal marketing 
order.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this 
important matter to our attention. I am certainly willing and prepared 
to work with her and the Agriculture Marketing Service to make sure the 
concerns of organic caneberry growers are addressed in regards to any 
new Federal marketing order for caneberry growers. I appreciate the 
gentlewoman not offering her amendment. I would be happy to work with 
her.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I thank the chairman for his leadership and his 
commitment to our farmers and rural communities.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


           Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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. 51 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
       In section 181, strike subsection (e) (page 128, line 23, 
     through page 129, line 9), and insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (e) Adjustment Authority Related to Uruguay Round 
     Compliance.--If the Secretary determines that expenditures 
     under subtitles A, B, and C that are subject to the total 
     allowable domestic support levels under the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements (as defined in section 2(7) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(7))), as in effect on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, will exceed such allowable 
     levels for any applicable reporting period, the Secretary may 
     make adjustments in the amount of such expenditures during 
     that period to ensure that such expenditures do not exceed, 
     but in no case are less than, such allowable levels. To the 
     maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall achieve the 
     required adjustments by reducing the amount of marketing loan 
     gains and loan deficiency payments obtained by persons whose 
     marketing loan gains, loan deficiency payments and any 
     certificates would otherwise exceed a total of $150,000 for a 
     crop year.

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this relates to the amendment 
that I had yesterday in terms of giving a greater advantage to the 
average, the medium-sized farmer, giving a lesser advantage to the very 
large farms in the country. This amendment relates to a WTO decision 
that might come, saying that the United States is going to have to 
reduce its subsidies for agricultural production. In the event that WTO 
makes that decision, the existing language in the bill has provisions 
where there would be an across-the-board reduction. My amendment says 
that the first reductions would come from those farmers receiving more 
than $150,000 in price support benefit payments.
  The provisions of the amendment yesterday was scored to save the 
government $1.31 billion if we had a real limitation of $150,000 on the 
particular payments that go out to farmers for price supports.
  I think as we proceed with this bill, as we move ahead to where we 
are going with agricultural policy in the future, somehow we need a 
policy that is going to help the farmers that need the help the most. I 
think it is unconscionable that we continue to give million-dollar 
awards. There are 152 farmers in the United States that received over 
$1 million in benefits. I think we need to continue to look at policies 
that are, number one, going to be market-oriented, number two, not to 
encourage increased production, and, number three, be fair to most all 
the farmers in the United States.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason that I am opposed to this amendment is, I do 
not know how it would work. Let me quickly explain, if I might, what I 
perceive as the unworkability of the amendment.
  As the gentleman from Michigan mentioned, we have in the bill a 
circuit breaker in which if, in fact, we do bump the limit under the 
amber box, under negotiated agreements of the amount that can be 
expended that fall into that box, there is a trigger mechanism by which 
it would allow the Secretary to make adjustments across the board in 
order to comply with that.

[[Page H6344]]

 None of us want to exceed the limit. We have talked about that all 
throughout the 2 years of discussion on this farm bill. The problem 
with this amendment, however, is that that decision and that 
determination of when we hit the limit, it will be after the fact. It 
will be after the people have received their money. It will be after 
the crop happened to be already in the loan, and you take the action 
from that point forward. You cannot take it back to the people that 
have already received the money. And so the action of any trigger 
mechanism would be to respond to the overage from that point on.
  Again, the problem is that that money will have already been 
expended, it will already be in the hands. It may be 1, 2, 3 years 
after the money has been expended before there is a recognition of the 
fact that we have bumped the limit under the amber box. In terms of 
would you, could you take it out of those people's amounts of money in 
the future, they may not be eligible to receive any money in the 
future. And so, therefore, it would all be prospective.
  I just do not think this would be a workable amendment and, as I 
indicated, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Hopefully 
we are not going to bump up against this limit, because it is going to 
be very complicated however we do it, if we bump against a WTO 
provision that says we have got to pay back and somehow reduce the 
subsidies that have already gone out. So hopefully that is not going to 
occur in the way we finally draft the bill.
  Mr. COMBEST. One would hope not as well, but the gentleman made the 
point himself in trying to retrace the money that has already been paid 
out.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. You are going to have to do that, anyway.
  Mr. COMBEST. No, you would not have to do that, anyway. I did not 
yield to the gentleman, but I did hear him say that you would have to 
do that, anyway. You would make the adjustments into the future if, in 
fact, you bumped the limit. That is what the trigger mechanism is.
  I again oppose the amendment. I think it is totally unworkable.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, also. My 
analysis of this is if this provision were imposed, it would result in 
the forfeiture to CCC of commodities placed under loan when a person 
reaches the $150,000 limit. CCC would subsequently sell these 
commodities to minimize carrying costs and to move them to the market 
as quickly as possible. CCC is expected to incur expenditures equal to 
the LDP and MLG cost. Consequently, no savings are expected.
  Therefore, I join with the chairman in his opposition and his 
explanation as well as this point that I believe is relevant.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Inslee

  Mr. INSLEE. 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. 31 offered by Mr. Inslee:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

              TITLE X--ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 1001. RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES.

       (a) Environmental Quality Incentives Program.--Section 1240 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa), as 
     amended by section 231 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) assistance to farmers and ranchers for the assessment 
     and development of their on-farm renewable resources, 
     including biomass for the production of power and fuels, 
     wind, and solar.''.
       (b) Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
     Service.--The Secretary of Agriculture, through the 
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
     and, to the extent practicable, in collaboration with the 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service, regional biomass 
     programs under the Department of Energy, and other 
     appropriate entities, may provide education and technical 
     assistance to farmers and ranchers for the development and 
     marketing of renewable energy resources, including biomass 
     for the production of power and fuels, wind, solar, and 
     geothermal.

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this relatively simple amendment will allow 
farmers to receive assessment and technical assistance from the 
Department of Agriculture in assessing and developing renewable energy 
resources on their farms. We have learned that farmers have tremendous 
potential in developing their wind resources. In our State, we have 
seen some tremendous development of wind turbine energy on agricultural 
lands. Biomass is a great potential as well as solar. We think that 
this is an appropriate use of flexible dollars for farmers to ask for 
assistance to develop these new technological resources in a very 
environmentally friendly way. We appreciate the committee's cooperation 
in assessing this potential.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, we have looked at this. We do, as the 
gentleman knows through the discussion, have some concerns. It may take 
some adjustment throughout. The committee would be happy to work with 
the gentleman on trying to achieve that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Dooley of California

  Mr. DOOLEY of California. 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. 19 offered by Mr. Dooley of California:
       At the end of title VII (page 321, after line 23), insert 
     the following new subtitle:

                      Subtitle F--Funding Sources

     SEC. 793. USE OF PORTION OF FUNDS FOR FIXED, DECOUPLED 
                   PAYMENTS TO INSTEAD FUND ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE 
                   RESEARCH EFFORTS.

       (a) Availability of Funds.--Notwithstanding section 104, 
     for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall use $100,000,000 of the funds that would 
     otherwise be provided to producers in the form of fixed, 
     decoupled payments for that fiscal year to make an additional 
     deposit into the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food 
     Systems account.
       (b) Grants.--
       (1) In General.--For each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2011, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make grants under 
     section 2(b) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities 
     Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) to the faculty of 
     institutions eligible to receive grants under the Act of 
     August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), including Tuskegee 
     University, West Virginia State College, 1994 Institutions 
     (as defined in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-
     Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note)), and Hispanic-
     serving institutions (as defined in section 1404(9) of the 
     National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103(9)).
       (2) Amount of grants.--The total amount of grants awarded 
     under paragraph (1) for each fiscal year shall be not less 
     than ten percent of the total amount deposited into the 
     Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems account 
     during that fiscal year.

  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering 
today is one which is designed to really reflect the priorities of 
American farmers. I am proud to be a fourth-generation farmer in the 
San Joaquin Valley of California. But really, when I look at the farm 
policy we are advocating today, this bill would provide almost $100 
billion in direct payments to farmers over the next 10 years. This 
money, a lot of it, is much needed to ensure the financial viability of 
a lot of our farmers. But I also know that those farmers that are in 
the fields also understand that we have to have a balance, that it is 
important for us to also recognize that some of these Federal tax 
dollars could be put to good use by investing in research.
  And so what my bill does, it takes one cent of every dollar that we 
are

[[Page H6345]]

spending on direct payments to farmers and puts it into a competitive 
research program. That $100 billion, almost $100 billion in direct 
payments that we are going to be providing over the next 10 years, it 
takes $1 billion of that and sets it into the competitive research 
program through USDA. These research dollars that will become available 
will ensure that we are investing in technology and improved 
agricultural practices that will benefit all commodities.
  It is unfortunate that that $100 billion that we are providing in 
direct payments to farmers in this farm bill is going almost 
exclusively to the producers of the major field crops, whether it be 
wheat, whether it be corn, whether it be rice, whether it be cotton. 
The specialty crop growers, whether they be grapes and the apple 
growers and the vegetable growers, get very, very little.
  What this amendment would do would be to ensure that those 
commodities, along with the major commodities, would get some money in 
order to invest in research programs at our leading research and 
academic institutions throughout this country that could be invested in 
a manner to ensure that it would enhance the productivity of our 
farmers, that it would enhance their profitability, that it would 
enhance their viability.
  I think if you asked the farmers throughout the country whether or 
not they were willing to set aside one cent out of every dollar they 
were going to receive in subsidies over the next 10 years, they would 
say yes. That is what this amendment does. It would provide $100 
million a year annually for competitive research programs for 
agriculture, which unfortunately, has been flat over the last 20 years.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we had an agreement of 10 
minutes and 10 minutes on this, 10 minutes in support and 10 minutes in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That has yet to be entered as a unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
exclusive of my time, that we would have 10 minutes in support as well 
as 10 minutes in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I want to say, primarily to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dooley), that there is not a more intelligent, thoughtful, studious, 
interested, committed, caring member of the Committee on Agriculture 
about American agriculture than the gentleman from California. I say 
that with tremendous sincerity and honesty. I have deep respect for 
him.
  I oppose this amendment, not on the substance of the amendment nearly 
as much as I do on the effect of the amendment. When I was fortunate 
enough to chair the Research Subcommittee of the House Committee on 
Agriculture, and I have made statements then and since that time, that 
I think probably research money is some of the best money we could 
spend. We increased in committee, in the bill that is before the House 
that this amendment would affect, an increase of $1.16 billion in 
funding for the initiative. Is it as much as any of us would want? I 
would say no. Is there as much in any part of this bill as anyone would 
want? I would say probably not. If there is, I have not found them yet.
  But my main objection to this, Mr. Chairman, is what I have said, and 
we are going to hear a lot, and that is the balance. It was the same 
reason I objected to the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Boswell), is that this takes money from part of this very delicate 
balance that we have and it does shift it into another area.

                              {time}  2000

  I wanted to make certain that everyone understands that I am not 
objecting to agriculture research or increasing funding for agriculture 
research; but when we had all of these competing interests in committee 
with a finite amount of money, I think we did a significantly generous 
increase, and for that reason, I would oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I, too, must say I have to reluctantly oppose the gentleman's 
amendment for the same reasons that the chairman has talked about, 
because I, too, would like to have increased the funding for research, 
just as I sincerely would have liked to increase the funding for 
conservation, just like we will have a later debate about increasing 
the funding for rural development. But as we live within the budget of 
$73.5 billion, these decisions were made; and I feel compelled to stay 
with the commitment at this point in time and encourage our colleagues 
to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague and good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), 
who has drawn attention to an important role in agricultural research, 
ensuring that American farmers are indeed prepared for the 21st century 
and on the cutting edge of technological advances and innovation.
  Surely one of the most important things Congress can do to support 
the future competitiveness of American farmers is indeed supporting 
agricultural research. Through agricultural research we have been able 
to increase yields, improve environment sensitivity, add to significant 
value, both ecological as well as economic, and advance agriculture 
outputs for the world's population.
  With the increased pressure from emerging nations overseas bearing 
down on American agricultural markets, continued technological 
innovation must continue, because we cannot compete with those 
countries from the standpoint of human capital. We must build upon our 
research capacity to retain the competitiveness of American 
agriculture.
  I would like to bring to the attention of the committee one 
particular component of this amendment that is very important to the 
minority institutions, those of the 1890s, those of Hispanic-serving, 
as well as the Indian-serving, the Native American institutions. All of 
these institutions play a very important role on small disadvantaged 
sustainable agriculture, particularly in the minority community.
  By voting for this amendment, we ensure the output and the research 
and the involvement of these institutions with the other major land 
grant universities. This is an opportunity where we can bring together 
all of the land grant institutions working together, both for 
sustainable development, as well as for the big ideas as well.
  Again, I want to commend my colleague from California and to say this 
is the right way. I know both the chairman and the ranking member 
regret that they cannot be enthusiastically supporting this, but I 
would hope, indeed, that Members would understand the value of research 
is so important that we really are not taking away from farmers, we are 
adding to it.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of this amendment. I recognize the tightness of the budget; but nothing 
is more important than research, and most especially research that will 
yield food. There are so many families and so many children that go to 
sleep hungry and wake up hungry every day. The one way that we can help 
to solve this problem is to do the research so we can find better ways 
to have better yields so that the least that we can do is to feed the 
children.

[[Page H6346]]

  I know that the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the 
Hispanic-serving institutions would also have an opportunity to join 
in, who know probably this issue and this problem almost better than 
anyone else. So I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me time. Let me applaud the gentleman for his 
leadership on this very important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the farm bill because I believe this 
is an important investment in America's future. Farm security, 
investment in the food chain and recognizing that as we look to a new 
day in securing America, we are going to have to look to the investment 
in our farmers, small and large.
  At the same time, I believe the Dooley amendment provides the 
opportunity to take just a small measure of dollars, $100 million, to 
provide cutting-edge research and technological development as the keys 
to our Nation's competitiveness in an increasingly global trade market 
for agricultural products. If we do not invest in the cutting-edge 
technology, we cannot be in front of the curve to be able to be 
competitive, to be able to reach the pinnacle, if you will, of the kind 
of agricultural development that will make us internationally 
competitive.
  Let me also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for 
recognizing that the land grant colleges, historically black colleges 
and the Hispanic-serving colleges can be very much a vital part of this 
research. May I remind everyone of Booker T. Washington and as well 
George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington with the Tuskegee 
Institute and as well George Washington Carver invested in the 
understanding of farming. These institutions are able to provide the 
cultural insight and the rural insight into research, and it helps them 
to develop individuals who will be leaders in research as it relates to 
competitiveness in agriculture.
  I would simply say this is a mere drop in the bucket. I do not want 
to diminish the amendment, but it certainly is a worthwhile amendment. 
I ask all my colleagues in a bipartisan way to support the Dooley 
amendment.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise asking my colleagues to support this amendment. 
I will tell you how it even impacts me personally. Over 10 years ago, 
when I came into Congress, I was a full-time farmer. At that time we 
were producing about on our cotton fields in the San Juaquin Valley 
about 1,000 pounds per acre of cotton. Today we are producing almost 
1,800 pounds of cotton. The financial viability of my farm was not the 
result of program payments that are coming to us from the Federal 
Government. The profitability of my farm is much more a function of the 
investment in research that has resulted in improved varieties that 
have enhanced yields.
  That is the crux of this amendment. It is taking one cent out of 
every dollar that we would be providing in direct payments and 
investing it in research so we can continue to see improvements in 
yields, so we can see improvements in productivity. That has far more 
to do with the financial viability of farmers than the $100 million we 
are providing in direct payments to farmers. That is not an investment 
in the future.
  I just ask my colleagues to step back and take an honest and 
objective evaluation of what this amendment is all about. It is taking 
one penny of every dollar in taxpayer subsidies and saying let us 
invest it in research, let us invest it in the future, et cetera, et 
cetera. The farmers will see an enhanced level of productivity which 
will be more to their bottom line than these direct taxpayer payments.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dooley).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Emerson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 2646) to provide for the continuation of agricultural 
programs through fiscal year 2011, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________