[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 132 (Thursday, October 4, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6346-H6375]
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}  2012


                     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 pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, amendment No. 19 printed in the Congressional Record 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) had been disposed 
of.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, debate on amendment No. 
47 and all amendments thereto shall not exceed 55 minutes, with 45 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and 10 minutes controlled by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey); and no further amendment may be offered after the 
legislative day of today, except one pro forma amendment each offered 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Agriculture or their designees for the purpose of debate, and any 
debate on the Bono

[[Page H6347]]

 amendment No. 11, which will be limited to 20 minutes, equally 
divided.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


               Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

  Mr. GILCHREST. 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. 23 offered by Mr. Gilchrest:
       At the end of title II, insert the following:

               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;
       (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 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.

       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment that deals with a 
concept known as the ``conservation corridor.'' A conservation corridor 
would use existing agricultural and forest conservation practices to 
ensure a steady contiguous land mass for the purpose of protecting, 
enhancing and making agriculture profitable. In accordance with the 
conservation programs in the Department of Agriculture, we want to make 
a conservation corridor.
  I have discussed this with the committee and a number of members on 
the committee; and at this point, to discuss further this issue, I 
would like to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed in great detail the 
gentleman's amendment. I do not oppose in concept what the gentleman is 
trying to do, but I do have some concerns with some of the language 
that is in the bill and some of the impacts nationwide of his 
amendment.
  I would like to ask the gentleman if he would be willing to make this 
a pilot program to work on the language and withdraw his amendment. If 
he is willing to do that, I would do everything in my power to rewrite 
the amendment and to work with the gentleman and to try to get this 
included in the final bill in conference.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this. We do accept the 
fact that we will make it a pilot project in an area, a geographic area 
in my district known as the Delmarva Peninsula. It is a peninsula that 
includes part of Maryland, all of Delaware, and part of Virginia; and 
we will create a conservation corridor which will be conducive for 
agriculture to be profitable.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mrs. Clayton

  Mrs. CLAYTON. 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. 15 offered by Mrs. Clayton:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

   TITLE X--USE OF AMOUNTS PROVIDED FOR FIXED, DECOUPLED PAYMENTS TO 
        PROVIDE NECESSARY FUNDS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.

     SEC. 1001. USE OF AMOUNTS PROVIDED FOR FIXED, DECOUPLED 
                   PAYMENTS TO PROVIDE NECESSARY FUNDS FOR RURAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 104 of this Act, 
     in each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall--
       (1) reduce the total amount payable under section 104 of 
     this Act, on a pro rata basis, so that the total amount of 
     such reductions equals $100,000,000; and

[[Page H6348]]

       (2) expend--
       (A) $45,000,000 for grants under 306A of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act (relating to the community 
     water assistance grant program);
       (B) $45,000,000 for grants under 613 of this Act (relating 
     to the pilot program for development and implementation of 
     startegic regional development plans); and
       (C) $10,000,000 for grants under section 231(a)(1) of the 
     Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (relating to value-
     added agricultural product market development grants).
       (b) Related Amendments.--Section 613 of this Act is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``select 10 States'' 
     and inserting ``, on a competitive basis, select States'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3)(A), by inserting ``, plus \2/13\ 
     of the amounts made available by section 1001(a) of the Farm 
     Security Act of 2001 for grants under this section,'' after 
     ``Corporation''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)(2)(A), insert ``, plus \11/13\ of the 
     amounts made available by section 1001(a) of the Farm 
     Security Act of 2001 for grants under this section,'' after 
     ``Corporation''.

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that there is 20 
minutes. So the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) would have 
10 minutes, and I would have 10 minutes and then 20 minutes in 
opposition. Is that correct?
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, the chair would be agreeable to that if 
the gentlewoman is proposing that unanimous consent on her amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman asking for unanimous 
consent for 40 minutes of debate on this amendment, 20 minutes on each 
side, with the option on the gentlewoman's side of having that further 
divided to 10 minutes each, and all amendments thereto?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. That is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I come before this body again to seek additional resources for our 
struggling and rural communities, along with a safety net for our 
farmers. Both I think can happen.
  Clearly, agriculture has long played and continues to play an 
important role in the well-being of rural America. That is why I 
support the Farm Security Act of 2001. It provides a strong, generous 
safety net for the American agriculture producers in trying times for 
the farm economy.
  A farm safety net will provide refuge for our farmers during times of 
economic hardship. This is as it should be. But we must ask ourselves, 
will this farm safety net create non-farm jobs. Will this safety net 
help our rural communities deal with a multi-billion dollar backlog of 
unfunded infrastructure projects? Will the safety net increase the 
economic well-being of workers who have to drive 60 miles round trip to 
work at a Wal-Mart at $6.25 an hour? Will it provide running water for 
the 1 million rural Americans who still, still today, do not have 
running water in their homes? Will it prevent a great hollowing out of 
rural America that is currently taking place by young people and our 
most productive citizens moving away for a better opportunity?
  I say with deep regret and disappointment that the answer to these 
questions is no. No. This Congress must begin thinking of rural 
America, not just as the farmers who struggle with low commodity 
prices, though I have many farmers in that category; though we should 
help them and we must help them, but we must start thinking about rural 
America as a woman driving 60 miles round trip just to get $6.25 an 
hour and cannot support her family. We must do more for rural America, 
and I believe we can start with this farm bill.
  That is why I am offering an amendment with my colleague to increase 
rural development funding in this farm bill by an additional $1 billion 
over 10 years. I am aware and very appreciative of what this committee 
has done. The chairman and the ranking member have provided leadership 
in this area. They have invested $1 billion. I am simply saying that an 
additional $1 billion out of a total budget of more than $171 billion 
is a very small investment to pay. In fact, this amendment is both for 
the farmers, it is for their neighbors, as well as their communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, if the time was not divided by the gentlewoman's 
unanimous consent agreement, then I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have half the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for all of 
the many things she has contributed to agriculture and that we have 
worked with throughout this entire process.
  All of us support rural development. It is critical to all of us who 
come from rural America. Rural development is something that we see 
every day when we go to our small towns, and we have seen the progress 
of it. But again, my objection to this would be the same as it was to 
the Dooley amendment and the same as it was to Boswell amendment, and 
that is that we have this balance and we, fortunately, have so far been 
able to protect it. It does not say anything about a negative feeling 
toward rural development. I am totally supportive of rural development.
  Mr. Chairman, we have added rural development funds into the bill. We 
just have not had enough to go around. I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
tenacity and how hard she works on this subject, and I think she knows 
how much I respect her and appreciate her. However, I do rise in 
opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina to offer this amendment and to support 
it, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This farm bill spends many billions supporting our farmers, but it 
does too little to assist rural communities where farm families live 
and raise their families. We are asking for a crumb from the table, Mr. 
Chairman, $100 million out of a $50 billion pot of money; less than 2 
percent. A crumb for rural America. Not a whole cookie, not a slice of 
the pie, just a crumb.
  Who lives in rural America today? A lot of ex-farmers. The majority 
of people living in rural farm towns are not farmers. A lot of ex-
farmers, a lot of ex-oil workers. A lot of ex-miners as our mines have 
been closed. A lot of ex-loggers as our forests are locked up from 
logging. A lot of ex-manufacturers, as small manufacturing plants have 
left, too often, small rural communities.
  A lot of ex-utility employees. My gas companies come now, I am from 
Pennsylvania, from New York, and all of the staff and all of the 
support offices from out of New York State. Very few of them come from 
my area. My electric company now is out of New Jersey and will soon be 
out of Ohio, and all of the staff and all of the support people that 
help run our communities are no longer there. My telephone company 
comes from New York also. Those were people who made up the rural 
communities and helped lead them.
  Our ex-bank employees, as bank mergers have devastated rural 
communities. Three regional banks in my area are all now governed out 
of an Ohio bank. All of those support offices, all of those people who 
made up our communities are now living in large cities and neighboring 
States.
  Rural is much more than agriculture, and the future and success of 
our Nation's family farms are critically linked to the economies of 
rural communities. Only 6.3 percent of rural Americans live on farms 
and 50 percent of those farm families have significant off-farm income. 
That is why we need communities to support them. Farming accounts for 
only 7.6 percent of rural employment, and 90 percent of rural workers 
have non-farm jobs to help make it work.
  Rural employment is still dominated by low-wage industries. In 1996, 
23 percent of rural workers were employed in the service sector. Rural 
workers are nearly twice as likely to earn the minimum wage: 12 percent 
in rural, 7 percent in urban. Rural workers remain more likely to be 
underemployed and

[[Page H6349]]

are less likely to improve their employment circumstances over time, 
and 40 percent less likely to move out of low-wage jobs than central 
city residents.
  Of the 250 poorest counties in America, 244 of them are rural, only 6 
urban. In general, poverty rates are higher in rural than in urban 
areas: 15.9 percent rural, 12.6 percent urban. Rural families are more 
likely to be employed and still poor. In 1995, 60 percent of rural poor 
families worked some time during the year; 24 percent worked full time. 
Rural America has been exporting our brightest young people for years. 
We must reverse that trend. Rural communities need our help to plan and 
build a stronger economy for the future.
  I am here today to support this because the President said in his 
letter about this farm bill: ``The Farm Security Act 2001,'' the 
administration said, ``as drafted, misses the opportunity to modernize 
the Nation's farm programs through market-oriented tools, innovative 
environmental programs, including extending benefits to workers, lands 
and aid programs that are consistent with our trade agenda.'' Our 
amendment redirects money to market-oriented tools, innovative and 
environmental programs by redirecting money to the value-added market 
programs to have clean drinking water.
  Yes, ours is about clean drinking water grants, ours is about rural 
strategies and planting grants, ours is about helping farmers to value 
add to their products, helping farmers further process their products 
and get a decent price out of them; helping farmers be successful 
getting what their products are worth.
  I am pleased to join the gentlewoman in supporting this amendment, 
and I ask my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, clean water should be a national 
priority; and, in part, that is why I support this amendment. Clean 
water is vital to the urban community that I represent, but it is just 
as vital to the rural communities that would directly benefit from this 
amendment. It is essential to the quality of life of every resident in 
every community, every family, and every business. There are simply no 
exceptions.
  Many rural communities have a critical need for improved 
infrastructure such as water filtration and waste water systems, but 
without the infrastructure to provide for clean water, public health 
and the environment suffers greatly, and these communities are unable 
to attract new and viable businesses.
  The USDA acknowledged this problem in a State-by-State analysis. It 
was found that 2.5 million Americans had a critical need for safe 
drinking water. This number includes almost 1 million Americans who had 
no water piped into their homes primarily because they could not afford 
it. Estimates on updating water systems go well into the billions, and 
rural communities just do not have the money. They lack the local tax 
base to tackle this problem alone, and that is why it is up to Congress 
to commit the funding that will bring clean water to these communities, 
or this need will never be adequately addressed.
  Mr. Chairman, rural Americans should not have to leave their homes 
for urban centers to ensure that they will have access to clean water.
  Another fundamental need in rural communities is the need for 
professional staff to conduct strategic planning. This amendment would 
expand the strategic planning initiative in funding and scope and would 
empower rural communities to solve this problem at the local level.
  Rural communities often find themselves without a means to improve 
their local economies, and I believe this adversely affects the 
national economy. By passing this amendment today, Congress will help 
ensure that these communities participate in the national economy, in 
realizing the hopes and dreams of their citizens, in making sure that 
many citizens of minority communities who live in rural America will 
have their opportunity of fulfilling the American dream.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to support the gentlewoman in her 
amendment, and I would hope that many of my colleagues who do not come 
from rural America will come here and support this amendment as well.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a few minutes here to 
commend my fellow co-chair of the Rural Caucus for her incredible work 
on this amendment, as well as my colleague and other fellow member of 
the Rural Caucus, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  This is very, very important; and it is particularly important 
because I do not think that the current farm bill or the newly written 
Farm Security Act, while substantially increasing the funds for rural 
development, quite frankly, they do not go far enough.
  As one who represents the largest district geographically in the 
State of Missouri, the poorest district, and one which is heavily 
reliant not only on agriculture but also on tourism, mining, and the 
forest products industry, we are seeing very tough times in rural 
America.
  Not only do we need access to the Internet; we have a desperate need 
for critical health care services, for a transportation system that is 
safe and reliable; fundamental needs, as the gentleman from New Jersey 
was stating, like safe drinking water. These are basic things that 
folks in suburban areas are very accustomed to, but we do not have them 
in the rural parts of this country.
  In saying that, I know that the Clayton-Peterson amendment commits 
substantial amounts of money to infrastructure. I would like to ask the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina to elaborate a little bit on that.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the infrastructure provisions in this 
amendment provide $45 million annually for 10 years and would allow 
communities that the gentlewoman and I know are 5,000, 3,000, small 
communities, and even nonprofit organizations in the unincorporated 
areas, to have grant assistance along with the loans that they must 
incur while increasing their tax indebtedness in order to have water 
systems. So that is for clean water as well as for wastewater 
facilities.
  The other part is the strategic planning, which those in the urban 
areas take for granted. They get a larger percentage of Federal 
resources because they have people who can do that.
  Those of us who live in rural areas, if we look at the Federal 
resources, it is mostly transfer of payments: Medicare, Social 
Security, assistance to families with children. We do not get the 
community development planning, we do not get big sums of economic 
development, we do not get big sums of housing, and we do not compete 
well in those competitive grants. So this would allow us an additional 
$45 million to have strategic planning and coordination and 
implementation of that. Very similar to what the gentlewoman was so 
creative in moving in the Delta, to have them get grant assistance. We 
are just marrying this up.
  Finally, the value-added. That is simply giving our farmers the 
ability to add long-term profitability by adding new value and services 
to their raw commodities.
  So I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me to expand on that.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I thank the gentlewoman, and it is kind of like a 
quiver through my heart when I say to her, what about all of my farmers 
who have large, or not large, but medium-sized farms by, I guess, 
Western standards?
  The part that worries me about that, I think the amendment is 
tremendous, but it is costly. I worry about my rice farmers, my cotton 
farmers, people who are hanging on by a little thread, and the extra 
money we would have to take away with that.
  I want desperately to be able to support this, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I 
understand that. I represent a large farm

[[Page H6350]]

area. I represent the largest number of farmers in North Carolina. The 
area desperately needs the commodities, they depend on those.
  But I know my farmers understand what shared sacrifice means, and 
they would understand that they would want to have clean water in their 
communities. They would want to support their neighbors, their 
communities.
  So yes, it will take monies that are needed by commodities, but we 
have been, I think, in some ways very generous, though not too 
generous. So it would be, indeed, a shared sacrifice.
  I am going to vote for the bill, you understand, but I cannot deny, 
we are asking them to share. We are asking them to share 2 percent, 2 
percent. For what? For making rural America a far more viable 
community. The gentlewoman and I know that only 6 percent of all the 
people who live in rural America are on the farm. Less than 3 percent 
of them actually get all their income from farms, so this will go to 93 
percent of everybody who lives in rural America.
  My farmers are more generous than that, they do not mind sharing. I 
know the gentlewoman's farmers will understand that if she explains it 
to them.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I am feeling guilty.
  Mr. Chairman, I totally agree that we have to make a much larger 
monetary investment in rural America, but beyond the traditional 
commodity programs that have been a staple of our farm bills in the 
past, because it is critical that we develop a lasting infrastructure.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. And I ask the gentlewoman to take that lead. That is 
all I am saying.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about everything the 
gentlewoman is proposing. Perhaps in conference or in the Senate, 
perhaps someone can help us find the extra money.
  At this time I am afraid that I would not be doing right by my 
farmers, but I appreciate it.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will not even take the 2 full minutes, 
but I do want to rise in support of this amendment.
  This amendment would add resources to help rural communities improve 
their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Water quality is a 
critical component of public health, and an important determinant of 
the standard of living.
  It also contributes to the economic viability of rural communities. 
According to the EPA, small community water systems will need a large 
infusion of funding to meet the needs of their residents and economies 
over the coming years.
  This amendment would provide an additional $45 million a year. It is 
a modest amendment. It would take less than 2 percent of the fixed 
payments designated for commodities and redirect the resources to these 
other underfunded programs that benefit rural communities.
  I urge all my colleagues, whether they are from an urban area or a 
rural area, to support this much needed amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard today that this would harm the commodity 
programs. I believe that 2 percent would not ruin any program. It is 
important that the communities that our farmers live and raise their 
families in are good, solid communities and have the leadership they 
need.
  Our rural communities are struggling. They are the most struggling 
part of America. This Congress has reached out historically and helped 
urban communities. We have all supported that. Now it is time to help 
rural America.
  We have lost farming, in many ways. We have lost mining. We have lost 
resource drilling, oil and gas drilling. We have lost our local banks. 
We have lost our local utilities. Rural America is a different place 
today than it was 10 years ago. It has not enjoyed the boom that was in 
this country for the last 10 years.
  The highest unemployment in this country is in rural America. The 
most underemployment in this country is in rural America. The most 
dilapidated housing in this country is in rural America. These are the 
communities our farms live in.
  USDA, in their ``Food and Agriculture Policy: Taking Stock for the 
New Century,'' say seven out of eight rural counties are dominated by a 
mixture of manufacturing services and other non-farming activities. The 
next part is what is important. ``Traditional commodity support and 
farming-oriented development programs play an increasingly limited role 
in improving the prosperity of rural America.''
  I am not here arguing against the commodity supports, but when 
Members support the farmer who is less than 10 percent of the community 
and he does not have a community to support him, we have left out an 
important ingredient of rural America. The community we live in, no 
matter what we do, is the most important part. We are putting the money 
back too often into rich farmers' hands; and we are forgetting the 
community that the small, poor farmer lives in and is struggling for 
his meager existence.
  The farmers in my district are poor. They work the longest hours of 
anybody. They are struggling. We need communities to support them. This 
2 percent of this $5 billion a year is $100 million. Let us put 2 
percent into the rural infrastructure where our farm families live and 
raise their families.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in allowing me to 
speak on her amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress committed to having the Federal 
Government be a better partner with our State and local governments, 
with private citizens, to help make our families safe, healthy, and 
more economically secure. It is hard to think of an approach that would 
do more for our families in rural America than is outlined in this 
proposal.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I 
know how critical those water needs are. They have been documented here 
on the floor already today. We know that we need to be doing more in 
terms of value-added agriculture that is going to be critical for 
farms, particularly small farms where people are most at risk. This is 
important investment.
  But the area that I find most intriguing deals with giving planning 
resources to rural America. It has been a transformational effect in my 
State for communities large and small to be able to have the resources 
to be able to plan their future, to engage their citizens to be part of 
the solution, to go hunting for money, public and private. Sadly, the 
situation today is that rural communities do not have access to these 
critical planning resources.
  I commend the committee, the ranking member, and the Chair for having 
stepped forward with the strategic planning initiative. I think it is 
going to pay huge dividends. But I fear the committee has sold itself 
short. It should not be limited to a few States. The most compelling 
part of this amendment to me is that it will give these rural 
communities throughout America opportunity to have access to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I implore this body to give the tools to be able to 
manage their own destiny. I think it will pay dividends for years to 
come. I think as we look at the interesting coalition that has been 
assembled on behalf of this, it is reflective of new allies to help in 
the redevelopment of rural America.
  I urge members to support this.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the third good amendment that we have had 
tonight, each of which said if we just take a little bit from the base 
bill, we can do many more good things.
  All of them have been good: $20 billion for conservation, $1 billion 
for research, and now $1 billion for rural development.
  I feel compelled again, though, to observe to the body, especially 
when I hear it referred to as the administration position, there is 
still no administration position on anything regarding

[[Page H6351]]

this bill, other than asking us to defer action; no specific 
recommendations, nothing that we can do, other than suggest that we 
agree with them. But no one has ever, including the Secretary of State 
today, said specifically what they are for or against. I wish it was 
not that way, because we perhaps could have had a much, much better 
bill, but we do not.
  To those who talk about the lack of money today, the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Clayton) have every right to stand up and say ``additional money'' 
because they voted for the Blue Dog budget. They provided in the vote 
for the budget the amount of money they are asking for tonight.
  But the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) did not vote for 
it, and therefore I do not see how he can ask for additional money in 
the same way. I understand how the gentleman can, because I would like 
to support the gentleman. I happen to agree on water. I do not agree on 
the strategic planning. That was my idea. I think we ought to be slow 
on new programs.

                              {time}  2045

  We put $15 million into this as a pilot project because this is a new 
program. I think we ought to be a little conservative and cautious 
before we head out on a new program and we ought to try it and that is 
what we do.
  We put $15 million. They suggest an additional $45 million. On the 
water we put 30. They suggest an additional 45. On the value added, 
this was the chairman's proposal, he put 50. They add an additional 10. 
All of which are good and valid requests. But the problem we have again 
is as we have said over and over, we struck a very delicate balance 
between all competing interests, between our commodities, between 
conservation, between research, between rural development, between 
trade, between all of those competing interests in putting together the 
bill that comes from the committee.
  So again, I must add my reluctant opposition to what no one can say 
is not worthwhile. But we had to live under a budget that was imposed 
on us by this body, $73.5 billion, and that means we have to make some 
very tough allocation decisions. I feel compelled to stay with that 
decision we made and ask the body to reluctantly but firmly join in 
rejecting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, could I have the remaining time please?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) has 2 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 7 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
her leadership as well as the proponents of this legislation and this 
amendment.
  As a Member of the Committee on Science, we spend a lot of time 
talking about clean drinking water. I respect the leaders of this 
legislation. They are respected Members of this House who know full 
well the needs of the agricultural community around the Nation. But I 
believe the importance of community water assistance grants are so very 
important that over the life of this farm bill, the $1 billion that 
includes the community water assistance grants, but as well, strategic 
planning, coming from an area where we have begun to develop what we 
call super-neighborhoods, the interest of communities in planning is 
very vital. But in particular, this whole idea of keeping the water 
safe and developing clean water in rural areas I think is crucial.
  I know that in rural areas it has been long overdue. In the area that 
I know the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) represents, I 
know we spent some time in her district, particularly when we were 
dealing with the enormous flood problems. While we were there, in 
addition to trying to rebuild communities literally from the ground up, 
one of things that we noticed was most needed is a restructuring of the 
water system and wastewater system.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the idea of improvement in rural 
areas because as the rural areas are improved, so goes the larger 
communities.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If all Members are down to their final 
remarks, the order is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), 
then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), then the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) and then the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Lucas) has the right to close.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise again to repeat one more time that rural America 
needs our help. I do not really think Congress as a whole or the 
country as a whole realizes what has not happened in rural America.
  As we have seen urban and suburban areas grow and prosper and fight 
growth, in rural America we have had an exodus. We have had elements in 
this Congress that have stopped timbering and put loggers out of work. 
We have had elements in this Congress that have stopped mining and put 
miners out of work. We have had elements in this Congress that have 
made it pretty difficult to farm in some areas and put farmers out of 
work. We have had regulatory agencies that have been very difficult.
  There has been an attack on how we make a living on rural America. I 
said it many times, in my district we mine. I am from where the first 
oil well was drilled. We have the finest hardwood forest in America, 
and we farm and we manufacture. There are organizations against all of 
those.
  Rural Americans work for their money. They are the hardest working 
people in this country. They are the salt of the Earth in my book, and 
I am proud to represent them. I think we make a mistake when we put so 
many of our resources in helping a few. This 1 percent we are asking 
for helps the whole rural community. Most farmers depend on a second 
job for one of their family members or themselves. They depend on a 
second job for their children. They depend on support services in the 
community. When we do not support that community, we are making the 
biggest mistake because it will all fall apart in the end. This 1 
percent is an investment this House ought to make.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I again reluctantly rise in opposition. The speech of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), I happen to totally 
agree with everything that he said, with the one exception. We did not 
provide for the resources.
  We keep talking about the commodities and that element of the bill. I 
would like to remind our colleagues again, the guaranteed price level 
that we are talking about for the commodities for the farmers proposed 
in those commodities is 1990 levels. I will submit tonight, yes, we are 
not doing nearly what we should for drinking water, but we are doing 
considerably more than what we are doing under baseline.
  Value added and strategic planning, I am excited about that one, but 
I still believe that we ought to start slow because we are limited 
under the budget implications for this bill, in spite of what some 
would like to say about it. So I again ask for a no vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has expired.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  If the Committee on Agriculture does not act for all rural America, 
if this Congress does not use this farm bill as an opportunity to 
expand our investment in rural America, I would like to

[[Page H6352]]

ask who will do it? If not us, who? If not now, when?
  Indeed, the Committee on Agriculture has the congressional mandate 
for rural community development, and the farm bill is the obvious place 
where this should occur.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina has expired.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself what time I have 
remaining.
  I, too, must reluctantly rise and join in opposition with the ranking 
member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to the 
Clayton amendment that would pull valuable dollars away from the safety 
net in order to increase funding in rural development programs, but I 
believe we have made a great, great step in the right direction in 
funding in this base bill.
  Consider for a moment that farm programs and rural development 
programs are interdependent on each other and if we take $1 billion 
over the next 10 years away from the farm safety net, that that will 
ultimately hurt those producers who live and work in the rural areas. 
One of the programs that this amendment would direct money to is the 
community water assistance grant program. While that is a very 
meritorious goal, I would like to point out that H.R. 2646 provides $30 
million in mandatory funding per year for this program.
  Under existing law this is a discretionary program. It has never been 
fully funded in recent times, and recognizing that, the Committee on 
Agriculture increased and expanded the program to help address those 
needs of rural communities that have difficulty in providing safe and 
adequate quantities of drinking water. Additionally, there are 
authorized, ongoing water and waste disposal loans and grants that the 
House has funded in the fiscal year 2002 ag appropriations bill with 
more than $55 million in loans and almost $600 million in grants. H.R. 
2646 eliminates the authorized aggregate funding cap so that all 
necessary funds can be appropriated to meet this need.
  The Clayton amendment also directs funds to the Strategic Planning 
Initiative, and H.R. 2646 creates this initiative to increase community 
capacity building efforts at the local and regional levels. H.R. 2646 
already provides $2 million per year that will allow entities to 
develop and to collaborate on these strategic plans to sustain rural 
economic growth in communities.
  To further enhance rural development efforts, H.R. 2646 authorizes 
the National Rural Development Partnership, which will promote 
interagency coordination among Federal departments and agencies to 
administer the policies and programs affecting rural areas. This 
partnership will serve as a resource for communities in working with 
rural development programs and will help streamline the available 
programs.
  Remember, the underlying bill makes permanent the Resource 
Conservation and Development councils which will not only increase the 
conservation and natural resources but also support economic 
development and enhance the environment and the quality of rural 
living.
  These provisions are clearly a statement in the underlying bill that 
we want to do everything that we can to encourage rural development, 
but unfortunately, we must work within the resources that are available 
to us. We must address the needs of the overall farm safety net, and I 
reluctantly oppose the amendment and ask for the passage of the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule I, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Bono

  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 11.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mrs. Bono:
       At the end of title IX (page 354, after line 16), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. ____. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING OF PERISHABLE 
                   AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.

       (a) Establishment of Labeling Requirement.--The Perishable 
     Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, is amended by inserting 
     after section 17 (7 U.S.C. 499q) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 18. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING OF PERISHABLE 
                   AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.

       ``(a) Notice of Country of Origin Required.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (b), a retailer of a perishable 
     agricultural commodity shall inform consumers, at the final 
     point of sale of the perishable agricultural commodity to 
     consumers, of the country of origin of the perishable 
     agricultural commodity. This requirement shall apply to 
     imported and domestically produced perishable agricultural 
     commodities.
       ``(b) Exemption for Food Service Establishments.--
       ``(1) Exemption.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a 
     perishable agricultural commodity to the extent that the 
     perishable agricultural commodity is--
       ``(A) prepared or served in a food service establishment; 
     and
       ``(B) offered for sale or sold at the food service 
     establishment in normal retail quantities or served to 
     consumers at the food service establishment.
       ``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `food 
     service establishment' means a restaurant, cafeteria, lunch 
     room, food stand, saloon, tavern, bar, lounge, or other 
     similar facility, which is operated as an enterprise engaged 
     in the business of selling foods to the public.
       ``(c) Method of Notification.--
       ``(1) In general.--The information required by subsection 
     (a) may be provided to consumers by means of a label, stamp, 
     mark, placard, or other clear and visible sign on the 
     perishable agricultural commodity or on the package, display, 
     holding unit, or bin containing the commodity at the final 
     point of sale to consumers.
       ``(2) Labeled commodities.--If a perishable agricultural 
     commodity is already individually labeled regarding country 
     of origin by a packer, importer, or another person, the 
     retailer shall not be required to provide any additional 
     information to comply with this section.
       ``(d) Violations.--If a retailer fails to indicate the 
     country of origin of a perishable agricultural commodity as 
     required by subsection (a), the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     assess a civil penalty on the retailer in an amount not to 
     exceed--
       ``(1) $1,000 for the first day on which the violation 
     occurs; and
       ``(2) $250 for each day on which the same violation 
     continues.
       ``(e) Deposit of Funds.--Amounts collected under subsection 
     (d) shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States 
     as miscellaneous receipts.''.
       (b) Application of Amendment.--Section 18 of the Perishable 
     Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, as added by subsection 
     (a), shall apply with respect to a perishable agricultural 
     commodity offered for retail sale after the end of the six-
     month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
earlier today, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) and a Member 
opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The reality today is that food is a global product. Whether it is 
Mexican cantaloupe or Coachella Valley table grapes, the need for 
country of origin labeling is a consumer information and safety issue 
that affects millions of Americans.
  With this in mind, I, along with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley) am offering legislation, H.R. 1605, The Produce Consumers Right 
to Know Act, as an amendment to the pending legislation before this 
House.
  For the past 69 years, goods imported into the United States have 
been required to be labeled with their products country of origin so 
that the consumer will ultimately know where the product was produced. 
Your shirt, your coffee mug, your chair and your pen probably all have 
country of origin labels, yet there is no law that mandates that fresh 
fruit and produce be labeled with its country of origin.
  When the last comprehensive labeling Act was passed by Congress 
nearly 70 years ago, there were there very few fruit and vegetable 
imports into the United States so the requirement was

[[Page H6353]]

unnecessary. However, in the 21st century, with free trade agreements, 
produce is now widely imported to every city and every State of this 
country.
  It is important to note that U.S. law already encourages the labeling 
of fresh fruits and vegetables. Currently most of the boxes that 
contain produce are shipped over to the United States labeled with 
their country of origin. However, those boxes are usually left in the 
back room along with their labels.
  As a result, the consumer sees the produce but not the shipping box 
or label. Therefore, while valuable country of origin labeling is 
usually attached to the produce when it enters the store, this label 
never ends up making it to the mom or dad who are shopping for the 
family so that they can make an informed decision.
  While the United States does not have a country of origin law for 
fruits and vegetables, the State of Florida passed the Produce Labeling 
Act of 1979. At the retail level, Florida's country of origin labeling 
program is successful and inexpensive. Florida's Produce Labeling Act 
requires simply two staff hours per store per week.
  In an era of free trade with our many trading partners around the 
world, it is imperative that fair trade is an element in any of our 
trading agreements. The GAO says that 13 of our Nation's 28 biggest 
trading partners require country of origin labeling for fresh produce. 
Mexico is a source for more than half of our Nation's produce imports, 
and ironically, it requires origin labeling on imported produce sold 
there. Other countries such as the U.K., France, Japan and Canada have 
labeling laws as well.

                              {time}  2100

  The truth is that everyone wants to know where their food comes from. 
In the 21st century, with our local supermarkets carrying everything 
from Brazilian bananas to Chilean table grapes, virtually everything 
bears its place of origin except for produce. I believe consumers want 
this to change.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have the time be 
equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I reluctantly rise in opposition because I do support the idea of 
doing country-of-origin labeling. Unfortunately, I do not believe that 
at this time this topic should move forward on the farm bill.
  This is an issue that we have had numerous hearings on in my 
subcommittee and in the Committee on Agriculture in the last several 
years because it is something that people care so deeply about. But, 
unfortunately, we have been unable to reach consensus in the industry 
as to the proper way to proceed with doing this.
  There are big differences within the industry, whether we are talking 
about producers or processors, or the retailers themselves; but there 
are also big differences between the producers themselves. Some are 
very much in favor of moving forward, some are opposed to doing that, 
and there are a number of different ideas as to how and what the best 
way to proceed with doing country-of-origin labeling is.
  Some of the issues that we have had to deal with in the past couple 
of years have made it very difficult to reach that consensus. I can 
tell my colleagues that we have had testimony in the committee that 
about 70 percent of the cost of proceeding with a program such as this 
will go back to the producers themselves in the form of lower prices. 
They end up absorbing the cost of this program. In the limited programs 
such as this that have been used in the statewide example and others, 
they have seen very little, if any, net return back to the producers 
themselves.
  I can also say that GAO estimates that FDA's compliance cost for 
fruit and vegetables would be about $56 million per year. So this is 
not a no-cost program. It is an expensive program.
  At this time I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I echo the sentiments of my 
colleague from California and thank her for her leadership on this 
issue.
  I will tell my colleagues that when I walk into a grocery store to 
buy produce for my family, I want to know where it is grown and that it 
is safe. This should be my right as a consumer. After all, we have laws 
on the books that say we have to have country-of-origin labeling 
whether it is our shoes, socks or auto parts. But for reasons beyond my 
comprehension, we do not know where the produce is grown. Food that is 
put in our body, we do not know where it is grown.
  There is not a single person in this Chamber who would disagree that 
in the United States we have some of the world's most stringent 
regulations for farming. Our growers have to comply with strict, 
exhaustive local, State and Federal regulations governing the use of 
land, water, labor and pesticides, rules that many of our trading 
partners do not have to comply with. As a result, our food is some of 
the safest in the world.
  I believe that Americans have the right to know that what they are 
eating is safe and where it is grown. Opponents of this amendment 
contend that the cost for industry, including retailers, to comply with 
country-of-origin labeling requirements are too great and the price of 
produce will rise as a result. This is simply untrue.
  We already have a great test case currently in place. Florida, which 
is the fourth most populace State in the country, has had the country-
of-origin labeling requirement for over 20 years. The estimated cost of 
the mandatory-produce labeling law is less than a penny on a consumer's 
weekly grocery bill. Less than a penny. I want my colleagues to know 
that people will gladly pay that penny a week to know where their food 
is grown.
  Compliance can be achieved by simply placing signs near the produce 
bins or with price information. If it says apples, a dollar a pound, 
all that has to be done is to add, grown in Mexico, or wherever it is 
grown. Thirteen of our biggest trading partners, including Canada, 
Mexico, Japan, France, and the United Kingdom require country-of-origin 
labeling on produce imported into their countries. With 50 percent of 
our produce imports in this country coming from Mexico, I find it 
ironic that they have a labeling requirement and we do not.
  This amendment should be an easy ``yes'' vote. This is good for the 
consumers, good for our economy, good for our farmers, and this is 
something that the citizens of this great country want. It is time for 
Congress to close this loophole from 70 years ago and pass this 
amendment. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join 
us in passing the Bono-Hooley amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. I 
understand the objectives of the authors of this amendment, but I think 
it is important that this country maintains the principle of ensuring 
that the labels we are putting on products are providing real 
information to people, information that has a scientific basis in terms 
of providing nutritional or safety information which is important to 
consumers.
  If we adopt this precedent of country-of-origin labeling, we are 
saying that we are going to then adopt a principle that we can label a 
product which has no scientific basis, no scientific justification. 
There is no indication that these products are less safe or less 
nutritious. I think it is important for us to maintain that 
consistency.
  If we go down this path, we are really starting a precedent that we 
can then succumb to calls for labeling products that consumers might 
want the right to know what type of pesticides might be used on them, 
what type of fertilizers, even though we now have laws

[[Page H6354]]

in place and regulations which ensure that unless the health and safety 
of a product is going to be impacted we do not require that labeling.
  The other thing that I think is interesting, there is not a consumer 
anywhere, any of us in this Chamber today, that can go into a 
supermarket today and hardly pick up an apple, a plum, an orange that 
does not have a sticker on that individual piece of fruit. If there was 
value in that product being labeled from a particular country of origin 
or from the United States, there is nothing today to preclude a 
producer, a processor, a packager of putting that little sticker on 
that plum, peach, nectarine, or apple.
  Why do we believe that it is so important to establish another 
mandate by the Government on producers, on farmers, on retailers when 
there is the opportunity to do it voluntarily today?
  In light of the fact that we are not providing consumers with any 
information that actually goes to the health, the nutrition, the safety 
of a product, this proposal lacks merit. We need to ensure that we are 
making these decisions based on the long-held principle that the FDA 
and other agencies within the Government that it has to be based on 
science.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono) for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong 
support of the amendment offered by her, which is essentially her bill, 
the Produce Consumer's Right-to-Know Act.
  This amendment will bring consumers information on produce that our 
government has required on all imported manufactured goods since the 
1930s. My home State of Florida, as has been pointed out several times 
in tonight's debate, has required country-of-origin labeling on produce 
for over 20 years, and Floridians overwhelmingly support this type of 
labeling. It works, it is effective, and it is cost effective. The same 
should be required in all States.
  Perishable foods should have a clear visible sign to indicate their 
country of origin. Thirty-four other countries require a country-of-
origin labeling, including our own neighbors, Canada and Mexico. All 
Americans should have the right to know where their food is produced so 
that they can make informed decisions about what they are feeding their 
families.
  American growers already comply with strict regulations at local, 
State, and Federal levels. These regulations govern the use of land, 
water, labor, and agricultural chemicals. These rules ensure workers' 
safety, sanitation and environmental protection. Due to these 
regulations, Americans can be assured of the quality of our own 
domestic perishable foods. And with country-of-origin labeling, we can 
all make informed decisions about foods from other countries as well.
  I congratulate my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Bono), for fighting for this important cause for many years. But even 
in my south Florida community, where country-of-origin labeling is 
required, our growers, especially our tomato growers, are virtually 
wiped out. Why? Because of trade agreements like NAFTA, Mexican 
producers have flooded our local markets.
  People need to know where their produce is coming from. It is the 
fair thing to do. Let our consumers know what they are buying.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has 3 minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 3 minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the sponsors of this 
legislation are attempting to do. It is something that the Committee on 
Agriculture has looked at and has debated and looked at the pros and 
cons and how we might be able to implement something like this.
  The gentlewoman from Oregon mentioned that in Florida they had a 
program that required labeling, and it only added one cent a week, I 
think it was, to the grocery bill. The reality is that even though they 
have that law in Florida, it is not enforced; and there is no 
requirement that it be enforced.
  Idaho actually has a meat labeling law. The Idaho legislature passed 
it years and years ago. It is not enforced. Cannot be enforced. That is 
the problem. That is why we have some numbers that say it is only one 
cent a week, but we do not know what the true cost of mandatory 
labeling would be.
  One of the other problems in this that we have tried to deal with in 
the committee is, it is the retailer that is responsible. He is the one 
that will be fined. How is he going to know for sure where those fruits 
and vegetables are coming from? Somebody says they came from his farm 
in California, and the retailer finds out that they came from someplace 
else, from Mexico or someplace else, and he has them mislabeled in his 
store. He is the one that will be fined $1,000, $250 every day after 
that.
  I will tell my colleagues that voluntary labeling works. I look at 
Idaho Potatoes. That is a brand name. And the Idaho Potato Commission 
has the right to go after those individuals who misuse and mislabel 
potatoes that are not grown in Idaho; and they do that and 
substantially they win in court, and those people are required to pay 
fines to the Idaho Potato Commission. Voluntary labeling does work.
  What will make this program successful, to label whether it is meats 
or fruits and vegetables or other things, is when the consumer goes in 
the grocery store and says to the grocer, where did these apples come 
from? Where did this beef come from? Where did this turkey come from, 
or whatever? When the consumer asks that question, the grocer will find 
it advantageous to start labeling, and we will get voluntary labeling 
of all these products.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time; and I rise, too, in opposition to this 
amendment.
  I have mixed emotions that there is probably some reasons why we 
ought to be trying to get this accomplished; but I, along with the 
chairman, and as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Livestock and 
Horticulture, have sat through more meetings and testimony than I want 
to think about trying to work through this issue. It is a complicated 
issue. As the gentleman from Idaho just said, there is no prohibition 
against voluntary labeling, and there is some indication that that 
works pretty well in certain areas.
  We are trying to do a lot of things on the floor of the House here 
that sound good and probably are good ideas, but it is not like we have 
not tried to work these things through in committee. I know that the 
chairman agrees with me that we will continue to work on this and look 
at the issue, but this is not the place to be legislating complicated 
issues like this on the floor of the House.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  I just want to point out that it is not rocket science to put ``made 
in the USA'' on fruits and vegetables. It is no harder to do that than 
it was to put this tie's country of origin. In fact, it says where the 
fabric was made as well as where the tie is made. This pin, ``Made in 
the USA.'' This tie, ``Made in the USA.'' It does not take rocket 
science to figure out where a product was made and that it adds value.

                              {time}  2115

  Growers in Oregon, like growers across the United States, comply with 
strict laws governing agricultural chemicals. Compliance with these 
laws ensures food safety. American production standards add value. 
Labeling produce as to origin is a low-cost and effective way to help 
American consumers make an informed choice at the market, and it 
benefits American growers at the same time. It is good for consumers, 
and it is good for growers.
  Mr. Chairman, ultimately what this debate is all about is about 
choice. Americans deserve the information so they can make an informed 
choice about what they eat. It is truly ironic

[[Page H6355]]

that I know where my tie is made. I know where this pin is made, but if 
I run to the grocery store after I leave here and try to buy some 
broccoli or some other fruits or vegetables, I do not know where that 
product was grown. I think it is about time that American consumers and 
American producers can get a label on their product that proudly says 
Made in the U.S.A.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) to speak in opposition to my position.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I carried that issue in the California legislature. The 
issue is not just perishable fruit. I would admonish the Committee on 
Agriculture, we have to solve this. Every time we vote for buy American 
for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) got a bill passed where every part of an 
automobile has to be labeled, we do not even know where packaged goods 
come from.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to address this issue not only for perishable, 
but packaged goods. Americans have a right to know where their food is 
coming from. We need to get origin labeling adopted.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Members always 
need to remember to be careful what we ask for lest we might get it. In 
1973, we had a problem with imported Mexican wheat coming into the 
United States, and we came up with an idea that Mexican wheat had 
karnal bunt; and, therefore, we put a zero tolerance on karnal bunt. It 
was a terrible mistake because there is nothing wrong with wheat that 
contains an small amount of karnal bunt, but we now have a major trade 
problem.
  Country of origin labeling voluntarily imposed is excellent business. 
Most countries are already doing it. But when a label is put on and 
there is a suggestion that there is something about that label that 
suggests a safer food supply, be careful when we ask for that, 
particularly since in America we are now exporting $53 billion worth of 
agricultural products. We are importing $39 billion.
  Just a few months ago, a delegation from Mexico was here; and they 
were quickly moving toward mandatory country of origin labeling 
regarding biotechnology. The argument I make tonight, they took it; 
and, fortunately, we are not having to fight that battle of not being 
able to sell our commodities, which we are selling more to Mexico than 
we are buying from them in total today.
  I oppose this amendment. The cost as we have heard, it sounds good. 
It looks good, but in practicality it does not accomplish anything 
other than muddy the water considerably in our ability to continue to 
sell more into the world market. The consumers are no safer.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening, I opposed this amendment with 
mixed emotions because I basically support the idea; but it is much 
more complicated than we can solve in an amendment to the farm bill 
this evening.
  I would like to answer a couple of objections or questions that have 
been raised. This is not a food safety issue. If Members are afraid of 
imports in terms of food safety, then that is a completely different 
part of Federal law that Members have to look at. When Members are 
voting on trade bills, we can talk about food safety coming in. That 
has nothing to do with country of origin. It is handled by a completely 
different part of Federal law.
  The other issue is what the cost is. This has been brought up, what 
the cost is. The retailer is limited as to what they can charge. 
Somebody brought up that they had stuff coming in from Mexico or other 
foreign countries into their districts. That sets the price. That sets 
the market. If we put another cost on top of that, our producers are 
going to pay that cost, not the retailer.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to weigh this thing in its entirety, we cannot 
just come up with an amendment like this.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Bono).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BONO. 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 gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Bono) will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Etheridge

  Mr. ETHERIDGE. 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. 21 offered by Mr. Etheridge:
       At the end of section 164 (page 113, after line 5), add the 
     following new subsection:
       (g) Increase in Target Price.--
       (1) Increase.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the target 
     price for peanuts shall be equal to $500 per ton rather than 
     $480 per ton.
       (2) Corresponding reduction.--To offset the increase in the 
     target price for peanuts under paragraph (1), the maximum 
     number of acres that may be enrolled in the conservation 
     reserve program is hereby reduced to 38,000,000 acres.

  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the 
ranking member, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) who is 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Foreign Agriculture 
Programs, and others who have worked so hard to bring this bill to the 
floor with a peanut program that gets us into the 21st century. I 
commend the gentlemen for their efforts on that.
  They have constructed a program which will help peanut farmers, 
particularly peanut farmers who own peanut quotas, make their 
transition from AMPTA payments, marketing loans, and a countercyclical 
program. Unfortunately, this transition looks to be difficult on those 
peanut farmers who rent their quotas and their land.
  Currently, peanut farmers enjoy support levels of about $610 per ton. 
Under H.R. 2646, if a peanut farmer has quota, he will still receive 
close to that support level when he combines the marketing loans, 
peanut AMPTA payments, countercyclical payments and buyout provisions 
that this bill authorizes. However, those peanut farmers who rent quota 
and land do not receive a quota buyout payment so they are totally 
dependent on the other payments, particularly the new $480 per ton 
countercyclical peanut program in the bill, a $130 per ton difference 
from the current level.
  In North Carolina, we have many peanut growers; and they are going to 
have a very difficult time staying in business with the provisions in 
this bill. That is why I am offering this amendment. It would raise the 
countercyclical payment for peanuts from $480 to $500 per ton. It would 
offset this increase by increasing the CRP acreage from 39.2 million to 
38 million acres.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, my amendment also saves 
$116 million over 10 years. This money could be put back into the CRP 
or used for other purposes which the House may decide.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to ultimately withdraw this 
amendment after a couple of my colleagues speak on this issue, but I 
offer it in order to raise the issue of how peanut growers who must 
rent quota and land fare under the underlying bill.
  I know the chairman and the ranking member included in the manager's 
amendment a provision to allow peanut growers who rent the opportunity 
to assign base acreage on their own land or to others. This will give 
those growers a stronger position in negotiating rent process with 
landlords. It is a very helpful provision, and I thank both the ranking 
member and the chairman for this.
  What I would like for them to do is when they get in conference with 
the Senate, I hope Members will consider the possibility of phasing in 
the countercyclical program so these farmers do not have to face the 
shock of going from the support level of $610 a ton to $480 a ton in 1 
year. Phase-in is a smart approach that will allow these peanut farmers 
a smooth transition. Frankly,

[[Page H6356]]

it has been a total new approach for them.
  As a representative from a tobacco-producing State, I have followed 
the committee's development on this peanut program very carefully. Many 
tobacco quota holders in my State are hoping for a buyout, and I see 
this peanut program as a test case to see if we can proceed in a 
similar direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for 
looking at this important issue for our farmers.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) to increase the target 
price for peanuts. While I appreciate the committee's work on the bill 
and particularly on this issue, I remain deeply concerned that the 
changes made to the peanut program will not provide enough funding to 
keep farmers in business.
  The farmers in my district have told me that unless changes are made 
to the peanut section of the bill, they do not expect there to be any 
peanut farmers in certain parts of Virginia. According to the Virginia 
Tech extension office, it costs the Virginia producers $539 per ton to 
raise peanuts, excluding the land costs and return to management. These 
producers are the farmers, whether they own the land or rent it.
  Assuming that the producer would receive all of the base of $460.50 
per ton that is provided in the bill, it is quite apparent that the 
provisions of the bill are inadequate to cover the cost of production 
of peanuts. In addition, most of the quota in my area of Virginia is 
rented. As it currently stands, the bill does not take into account the 
producers' rent payments.
  Mr. Chairman, we should keep in mind that the farmers' costs have 
steadily increased as a result of higher fuel costs and higher fuel-
based products such as fertilizer. Already we are losing producers 
under the peanut program, and it is my fear that we will drive them 
completely out of business without some significant changes in the 
peanut provision of the bill. The farmers in my district simply cannot 
afford this, and we certainly cannot afford to lose any more farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.


     Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. 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. 33 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
     Texas:
       In section 441, add at the end (page 217, line 7) the 
     following: ``Of the amount made available to carry out 
     section 211(c) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 
     U.S.C. 5641(c)) for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 
     2011, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make available 
     $25,000,000 for the provision of commodities to child 
     nutrition programs providing food service under section 
     1114(a) of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 
     1431e).

  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is to 
increase the funding for the child nutrition programs by $25 million. 
These programs are actually in need of $55 million. This often is the 
only meal that poor children have. Seventy-five percent of these meals 
go to the poorest of children.
  Mr. Chairman, this funding will offset part of the proposed $90 
million increase that doubles funding for the market access program, 
known as the MAP program, and it helps producers and exporters finance 
promotional opportunities abroad, putting farmlands first and our 
preschool and school-aged children last.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to ask that this amendment be considered.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to provide $25 
million for child nutrition programs. These programs provide funding 
for our nation's schools to purchase commodities for their National 
School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs.
  The National School Lunch Program serves more than 27 million 
children every day, slightly over half to children who live at or near 
the poverty level in this country. More than 85 percent of the 7 
million breakfasts served in schools each day go to poor children. For 
these children, our federal school meal programs are their most secure 
link to good nutrition. These commodity food programs also allow school 
districts to offset the costs of lunches for children who do not 
participate in the program. In essence, these programs benefit the 
child receiving the free or reduced cost meal as well as the child who 
pays full price.
  Research has confirmed a link between nutrition and children's 
cognitive development, cognitive performance, and ability to 
concentrate. Preschool and school age children need to receive proper 
and adequate nutrition. Studies also show that these nutritional 
programs have contributed positively to scores on test of basic skills, 
reduced tardiness and absenteeism.
  Also clear is the link between our federal nutrition programs and our 
agricultural communities. The United States began providing 
agricultural commodities to our schools more than a decade before we 
started grants in aid to schools to provide meals, and three decades 
before we recognized the special needs of our poorest children through 
the free and reduced price meal subsidies. In 1994, Congress amended 
the National School Lunch Act to require that at least 12 percent of 
all federal support for school meals must be in the form of 
commodities. However, in 1998 the Congress again amended the National 
School Lunch Act to count bonus commodities, food products purchased 
under separate authorizations and for a very different purpose, to meet 
the 12 percent statutory requirement. While some thought this was 
merely an accounting change, the effect was a real cut in support for 
our school lunch program. The commodities, which will not be purchased 
under the entitlement authorization, are the ones best suited to meet 
the menu and nutritional requirements of our school meal programs. The 
impact of the change was not felt last year or this because Congress 
yet again passed another statute that corrected the error, but only for 
FY 2000 and 2001. But our schools will lose more than $55 million 
dollars in entitlement commodities in 2002 unless we act to correct the 
problem. Over the next eight years, this cut will exceed $440 million. 
That is a very real and significant cut to our school programs. Make no 
mistake, this is a school lunch budget cut-this is more than $55 
million per year that schools will not receive. It is also a $440 
million cut in the amount of agricultural commodities purchased by 
USDA.
  I have spoken with several of my colleagues and they share my 
interest in this matter. After all, this money is used by USDA to 
purchase agricultural commodities, and these purchases have a 
significant impact on producer incomes. The magnitude of this cut is 
even more dramatic when you consider the amount of food that it 
represents. This cut means that USDA will reduce its overall purchases 
by 660 million pounds.
  One of the best ways we can move forward as a society is to meet our 
obligations to our children. The Federal Government must follow through 
on its commitment to work in partnership with states, schools, and the 
agricultural community to administer a major program designed to 
improve children's diets and, in turn their overall health and well 
being. We can be proud that these school meal programs promote the well 
being of some of our Nation's most vulnerable children by providing 
them with the nourishment they need to develop healthy bodies and sound 
minds. Nutritious meals help students reach their full potential by 
keeping them alert and attentive in the classroom. As both common sense 
and extensive scientific research confirm, a hungry child cannot focus 
on schoolwork as well as one who has been fed a nutritious meal.
  Mr. Chairman, recognizing the many needs being addressed in this 
bill, I will withdraw the amendment, but would like to draw attention 
to how we, the representatives of our preschool and school age children 
across America, have neglected them. And in the spirit of National 
School Lunch Week, which begins the second week of October every year, 
I would also like to express my interest in working together with 
members of both the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce to explore this issue and seek ways to 
support our nation's pre-school and school age children by providing 
additional agricultural commodities. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I look 
forward to working with all of my colleagues who share my concern to 
amend this problem and provide for our pre-school and school age 
children at home first.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, because of my 
discussion with the chairman and the ranking member, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw this amendment and

[[Page H6357]]

hope that it will be considered at a later time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. 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. 47 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       At the end of chapter 1 of subtitle C of title I (page 75, 
     after line 17), insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. NATIONAL COUNTER-CYCLICAL INCOME SUPPORT PROGRAM 
                   FOR DAIRY PRODUCERS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means a Regional Supply 
     Management Board established under subsection (b)(4).
       (2) Class i, ii, iii, and iv milk.--The terms `Class I 
     milk', `Class II milk', `Class III milk', and `Class IV milk' 
     mean milk classified as Class I, II, III, or IV milk, 
     respectively, under an order.
       (3) District.--The term ``District'' means a Regional 
     Supply Management District established under subsection 
     (b)(3).
       (4) Eligible producer.--The term ``eligible producer'' 
     means an individual or entity that directly or indirectly has 
     an interest in the production of milk.
       (5) Eligible production.--The term ``eligible production'' 
     means the lesser of--
       (A) the quantity of milk produced by an eligible producer 
     during a month; or
       (B) 230,000 pounds per month.
       (6) Marketing area.--The term ``marketing area'' means a 
     marketing area subject to an order.
       (7) Order.--The term `order' means--
       (A) an order issued under section 8c of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937; or
       (B) a comparable State order, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (8) Participating state.--The term ``participating State'' 
     means a State that is participating in the program authorized 
     by this section in accordance with subsection (b)(2).
       (9) State.--The term `State' means each of the 48 
     contiguous States of the United States.
       (10) Trust fund.--The term `Trust Fund' means the National 
     Dairy Producers Trust Fund established under subsection 
     (b)(5).
       (b) Income Support for Eligible Producers for Milk Sold to 
     Processors in Participating States.--
       (1) In general.--During each of calendar years 2002 through 
     2011, the Secretary shall carry out a program under this 
     subsection to support the income of eligible producers for 
     milk sold to processors in participating States.
       (2) Participating states.--
       (A) Specified states.--The following States are 
     participating States for purposes of the program authorized 
     by this section: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, 
     Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 
     Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New 
     Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 
     Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, 
     and West Virginia.
       (B) Other states.--The Governor of a State not described in 
     subparagraph (A) may provide for the participation of the 
     State in the program authorized by this section by providing 
     notice to the Secretary in a manner determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (C) Withdrawal.--
       (i) In general.--For a State to withdraw from participation 
     in the program authorized by this section, the Governor of 
     the State (with the concurrence of the legislature of the 
     State) shall notify the Secretary of the withdrawal of the 
     State from participation in the program in a manner 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (ii) Effective date.--The withdrawal of a State from 
     participation in the program takes effect--

       (I) in the case of written notice provided during the 180-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, on 
     the date on which the notice is provided to the Secretary; 
     and
       (II) in the case of written notice provided after the 180-
     day period, on the date that is 1 year after the date on 
     which the notice is provided to the Secretary.

       (3) Regional supply management districts.--To carry out 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall establish 5 Regional 
     Supply Management Districts that are composed of the 
     following participating States:
       (A) Northeast district.--A Northeast District consisting of 
     the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
     Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, 
     Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
       (B) Southern district.--A Southern District consisting of 
     the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, 
     Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New 
     Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, 
     Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
       (C) Upper midwest district.--An Upper Midwest District 
     consisting of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
     Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
     Wisconsin.
       (D) Intermountain district.--An Intermountain District 
     consisting of the States of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, 
     Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.
       (E) Pacific district.--A Pacific District consisting of the 
     States of California, Oregon, and Washington.
       (4) Regional supply management boards.--
       (A) In general.--Each District shall be administered by a 
     Regional Supply Management Board.
       (B) Composition.--
       (i) In general.--The Board of a District shall be composed 
     of not less than 2, and not more than 3, members from each 
     participating State in the District, appointed by the 
     Secretary from nominations submitted by the Governor of the 
     State.
       (ii) Nominations.--The Governor of a participating State 
     shall nominate at least 5 residents of the State to serve on 
     the Board, of which--

       (I) at least 1 nominee shall be an eligible producer at the 
     time of nomination; and
       (II) at least 1 nominee shall be a consumer representative.

       (5) National dairy producers trust fund.--
       (A) Establishment and funding.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     National Dairy Producers Trust Fund, which shall consist of--
       (i) the payments received by the Secretary and deposited in 
     the Trust Fund under paragraph (6); and
       (ii) the payments made by the Secretary to the Trust Fund 
     under paragraph (7).
       (B) Expenditures.--Amounts in the Trust Fund shall be 
     available to the Secretary, to the extent provided for in 
     advance in an appropriations Act, to carry out paragraphs (8) 
     through (10).
       (6) Payments from processors to trust fund.--
       (A) In general.--During any month for which the Secretary 
     estimates that the average price paid by processors for Class 
     I milk in a District will not exceed $17.50 per 
     hundredweight, each processor in a participating State in the 
     District that purchases Class I milk from an eligible 
     producer during the month shall pay to the Secretary for 
     deposit in the Trust Fund an amount obtained by multiplying--
       (i) the payment rate determined under subparagraph (B); by
       (ii) the quantity of Class I milk purchased from the 
     eligible producer during the month.
       (B) Payment rate.--The payment rate for a payment made by a 
     processor that purchases Class I milk in a participating 
     State in a District under subparagraph (A)(i) shall equal the 
     difference between--
       (i) $17.50 per hundredweight; and
       (ii)(I) in the case of an area covered by an order, the 
     minimum price required to be paid to eligible producers for 
     Class I milk in the marketing area under an order; or
       (II) in the case of an area not covered by an order, the 
     minimum price determined by the Secretary, taking into 
     account the minimum price referred to in subclause (I) in 
     adjacent marketing areas.
       (7) Counter-cyclical payments from secretary to trust 
     fund.--
       (A) In general.--To the extent provided for in advance in 
     an appropriations Act, the Secretary shall use the funds, 
     facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation to make a payment each month to the Trust Fund in 
     an amount determined by multiplying--
       (i) the payment rate determined under subparagraph (B); by
       (ii) the quantity of eligible production of Class II, Class 
     III, and Class IV milk sold in the various Districts during 
     the month, as determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Payment rate.--The payment rate for a payment made to 
     the Trust Fund for a month under subparagraph (A)(i) shall 
     equal 25 percent of the difference between--
       (i) $13.00 per hundredweight; and
       (ii) the weighted average of the price received by 
     producers in each District for Class III milk during the 
     month, as determined by the Secretary.
       (8) Compensation from trust fund for administrative and 
     increased food assistance costs.--The Secretary shall use 
     amounts in the Trust Fund to provide compensation to the 
     Secretary for--
       (A) administrative costs incurred by the Secretary and 
     Boards in carrying out this subsection; and
       (B) the increased cost of any milk and milk products 
     provided under any food assistance program administered by 
     the Secretary that results from carrying out this subsection.
       (9) Payments from trust fund to boards.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall use any amounts in the 
     Trust Fund that remain after providing the compensation 
     required under paragraph (8) to make monthly payments to 
     Boards.
       (B) Amount.--The amount of a payment made to a Board of a 
     District for a month under subparagraph (A) shall bear the 
     same ratio to payments made to all Boards for the month as 
     the eligible production sold in the District during the month 
     bears to eligible production sold in all Districts.
       (10) Payments by boards to producers.--
       (A) In general.--With the approval of the Secretary, a 
     Board of a District shall use payments received under 
     paragraph (9) to

[[Page H6358]]

     make payments to eligible producers for eligible production 
     of milk that is commercially sold in a participating State in 
     the District.
       (B) Supply management.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), a 
     Board of a District may--
       (i) use a portion of the payments described in subparagraph 
     (A) to provide bonuses or other incentives to eligible 
     producers for eligible production to manage the supply of 
     milk produced in the District; and
       (ii) request the Secretary to review a proposed action 
     under clause (i).
       (C) Reimbursement of commodity credit corporation.--
       (i) In general.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation has incurred additional costs to 
     carry out section 141 as a result of overproduction of milk 
     due to the operation of this section in a District, the 
     Secretary shall require the Board of the District to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the additional 
     costs.
       (ii) Board assessment.--The Board of the District may 
     impose an assessment on the sale of milk within participating 
     States in the District to compensate the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for the additional costs.
       (c) Counter-Cyclical Payments for Eligible Producers for 
     Milk Sold to Processors in Nonparticipating States.--
       (1) In general.--To the extent provided for in advance in 
     an appropriations Act, during each of calendar years 2002 
     through 2011, the Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, 
     and authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make 
     payments to an eligible producer in a District for milk sold 
     to processors in a State that is not a participating State in 
     an amount determined by multiplying--
       (A) the payment rate determined under paragraph (2); by
       (B) the payment quantity determined under paragraph (3).
       (2) Payment rate.--The payment rate for a payment made to 
     an eligible producer in a District for a month under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall equal 25 percent of the difference 
     between--
       (A) $13.00 per hundredweight; and
       (B) the average price received by producers in the District 
     for Class III milk during the month, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (3) Payment quantity.--The payment quantity for a payment 
     made to an eligible producer in a District for a month under 
     paragraph (1)(B) shall be equal to--
       (A) the quantity of eligible production of Class II, Class 
     III, and Class IV milk for the eligible producer during the 
     month, as determined by the Secretary; less
       (B) the quantity of any milk that is sold by the eligible 
     producer to a processor in a participating State during the 
     month.
       (d) Limitation.--In determining the amount of payments made 
     for eligible production under this section, no individual or 
     entity directly or indirectly may be paid on production in 
     excess of 230,000 pounds of milk per month.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today, 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will 
control 22\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as we begin this discussion, I think tonight about the 
family farmers in the State of Vermont and throughout this country, 
people who are farming land which has often been in their family's 
possession for generations, people who work 7 days a week and want 
nothing more than to leave the land that they own to their kids, some 
of the very best people in this country.

                              {time}  2130

  This amendment is being brought forth to help those people not only 
in the Northeast, but all over this country.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking my colleagues from the 
Northeast, from the Midwest, from the South and other regions of this 
country for their help in shaping this bill. Let me be frank about 
saying that this bill is not perfect. It still needs work. But given 
the crisis facing family-based dairy farmers all over America, given 
the huge loss of farms that we have all experienced, it is a major step 
forward and it deserves the support of this body. It is my belief that 
the Senate is prepared to consider similar type legislation, and that 
some of the concerns that Members may now have about this bill can be 
worked out between this time and conference committee time. I will do 
everything in my power to work with Members to make that happen.
  Mr. Chairman, in every section of our country, family farmers are 
being driven off the land because the prices that they receive for 
their products are woefully inadequate. This is bad for rural America, 
which is losing its agricultural base. This is bad for the environment, 
as more and more open land becomes parking lots and shopping centers. 
This is bad for the consumer because, with fewer farms producing food, 
prices are more and more dependent upon the whims of a few large 
corporate interests who are increasingly controlling the industry.
  Mr. Chairman, we must preserve family-based agriculture in this 
country by making certain that dairy farmers all over America receive a 
fair and stable price for their product, and that is what this 
amendment seeks to do.
  Many of my colleagues know that dairy legislation has been very hotly 
debated in this Chamber and in the Senate for a number of years. There 
has been a lot of bitterness and contentiousness. In that regard, let 
me be clear in stating that I am a very strong supporter of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact which, in fact, originated in the State of 
Vermont. I believe that the compact has worked well for the six States 
who are in it and for farmers in neighboring regions who sell their 
milk into the compact area.
  I am proud that 25 States in this country voted for dairy compacts 
and that 163 Members of this body support the concept of a dairy 
compact.
  But, Mr. Chairman, there are people in this body who disagree with me 
and with the other 162 Members who support the compact. They have 
argued that a compact in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic States and in 
the South and in other regions would hurt their family farmers in the 
Midwest and elsewhere. I happen not to agree with them, but that is 
what they believe. Now is not the time to argue whether my view is 
right or their view is right. What this amendment does is to say to 
farmers in the Northeast, in the Midwest, in the South, in the West, 
family farmers all over this country, that we must come together, stop 
our fighting and pass a bill that will work for every region of this 
country.
  I am very proud, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation is absolutely 
nonpartisan, Democrats, Republicans and independents will vote for it, 
as will Members from the Northeast, from the Midwest, from the South 
and from every other region of this country. In fact, I believe some of 
the fiercest opponents of the dairy compact concept will be supporting 
this effort, and I am delighted to have them on board.
  Let me very briefly tell you, Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does. 
This legislation creates a new national voluntary countercyclical 
program made up of participating States. It is voluntary. But upon 
enactment, all States who have already voted to participate in the 
dairy compacts are automatically approved. Those States are Maine, New 
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, 
Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. Those 
States, because they have already approved the concept of a compact, 
are automatically in the program. But any other State that chooses can 
join and we expect that the vast majority of the States in this country 
will do so.
  This legislation establishes a national dairy trust fund which does 
not cost the taxpayers of this country one penny. What it does do is 
establish a mechanism through which dairy processors pay into the fund 
an equal amount to the differences between the class 1 market price 
paid to the producer and $17.50. This amendment establishes a cap which 
limits the amount of support any one farm can receive. The money 
acquired by the fund will then be distributed nationally to newly 
created regional boards based on the overall production of all milk, 
all milk, in the region.
  This mechanism addresses the major concerns that our friends in the 
Midwest have had whose farmers only sell 15 percent of their milk for 
fluid purposes as opposed to the 40 percent average that exist 
nationally. In order to make certain that farmers do not overproduce, 
the newly created regional dairy boards may use a portion of the funds 
they receive for incentives to manage the supply of milk produced in

[[Page H6359]]

the region. Importantly, these boards are responsible for reimbursing 
the Federal Government for any additional surplus purchases that result 
from the program operating in their region. In other words, we have 
built in a strong supply management component.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill says to farmers in Minnesota, in Wisconsin, 
in North Carolina, in Florida, in Idaho and Utah who have 100 cows, 
that they will receive the same help that farmers in Vermont and Maine 
and Massachusetts receive. It says that every region of this country is 
in danger of losing its family-based agriculture, and that we need a 
national approach to protect them.
  If you are one of the over 160 Members of the House who are 
cosponsoring the dairy compact legislation, you should support this 
bill. If you are from one of the 25 States in the country that have 
voted to support the dairy compacts, you should support this amendment. 
If you are from the Midwest and have seen thousands of your family 
farmers go under because of the unstable, inadequate prices, you should 
support this bill. If you are interested in conservation and the 
environment, you should support this bill, because it keeps our 
farmland open. And if you are from urban areas and you want to make 
sure that your constituents will continue to receive healthy and fresh 
dairy products at a reasonable price, you should support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) 
who has an amendment that I am supportive of.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Vitter to Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. 
                                Sanders

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vitter to amendment No. 47 offered 
     by Mr. Sanders:
       Strike ``230,000 pounds'' both places it appears and insert 
     ``500,000 pounds''.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this second-degree amendment to the 
Sanders amendment to make an improvement and remove one of the concerns 
that had originally arisen with his proposal. In the Sanders amendment 
as written, benefits are limited to 230,000 pounds of milk per month. 
That number really does not reflect the needs of all regions of the 
country, including my region in the South. Raising that amount to 
500,000 pounds per month, which my second-degree amendment does, that 
would encompass and involve about a 300-cow farm, and would make dairy 
producers in many regions of the country, including the South, more 
comfortable with the gentleman from Vermont's underlying amendment. 
With this new 500,000 pound limit, most of the dairy farmers in 
Louisiana and many other regions would be properly included.
  In offering this second-degree amendment, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Vermont for offering his proposals. Admittedly this is a 
work in progress. It was only really largely developed and brought out 
to other Members in the last few days, but it clearly has a lot of 
potential. It is not everything the compact would offer to many dairy 
producers, including those in the South, but it is a very good work in 
progress that I would like to constructively support tonight, so that 
hopefully we can continue to perfect it as it moves along in the 
process. I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont for his cooperation 
and his pledge to work with all regions, including the South, to make 
sure that all dairy farmers' needs and concerns and questions are fully 
taken account of as hopefully we move forward in the process.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank my friend from Louisiana. I believe this 
amendment should be adopted because it advances our efforts to reach a 
consensus among dairy producers in this country. It represents a good 
compromise between those who would want a super low cap and those who 
have no cap. If we are ever to make any progress on dairy, all of us 
will have to give a little. So I appreciate the amendment. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders).
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
22\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the dairy subcommittee on the House 
ag committee.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I want to start off by saying I appreciate a great deal the job that 
the gentleman from Vermont has done in his attempt to try and bridge 
some of the differences, some of the regional differences that exist. I 
appreciate that effort that he has put into this. But I do have to 
oppose his amendment to the bill.
  I came to Congress 10 years ago, or almost 10 years ago. The 
committee that I was put on was the dairy subcommittee. I have had the 
great joy of spending literally countless hours debating dairy, not 
only here today, but over the last 10 years, and getting to appreciate 
those regional differences and just how difficult it is to try to 
construct national dairy policy that actually addresses one region of 
the country where their average dairy may be 40, 45 cows, versus a 
region of the country like the one that I happen to represent, where 
our average dairy is almost 600 cows. With the Vitter amendment, which 
is a step in the right direction, he is still about half the size of 
the average dairy in my district. That makes it totally unworkable in 
terms of my district.
  The details of this particular plan, I think we could debate through 
the night, whether they are good or bad, but I can tell the gentleman 
from Vermont that I have no idea what the impact is going to be on 
California, on Vermont, on Wisconsin, Minnesota or anyone else. I saw 
this for the first time yesterday. I have not seen any of the economic 
analysis on this. I have no idea how it is going to impact the average 
family farmer, whether that be in his district or mine.
  Until we have the opportunity to sit down and actually figure out 
what the impacts are, what the impact is going to be on overall 
production, if you are going to go up to a $17 price, does that 
increase the amount of production in this country? What happens to the 
average dairy size in California? Do we all of a sudden go from 600 to 
300 and take twice as much land so that every dairy qualifies for the 
program?
  There are a lot of questions that are unanswered. Unless we have the 
opportunity to go through the regular process, to have the committee 
hold hearings on this, to look at the economic analysis, unfortunately 
there is no way at this point that I could support this legislation.
  As I said, I appreciate the job that the gentleman did. I appreciate 
the effort. I look forward to working with him in the future because I 
do think that this is a place that we can start and we may be able to 
move on from here. But at this time there is just no possible way that 
this amendment should be included in the farm bill.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of the 
time allotted in opposition, which I think would be 11\1/4\ minutes, be 
given to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) or his designee for 
his control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the 
time that has been allotted to us.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 11\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise as well to oppose this amendment. I 
serve as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Livestock and 
Horticulture, and I have had the joy, as the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo) put it, to be on that committee I think 2 years longer than 
he has, which has been an educational process.

[[Page H6360]]

  But I think that we all should recognize that the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has been an outstanding advocate for family 
farmers, and especially dairy farmers. There is nobody that has worked 
harder. A lot of the ideas he has in his amendment are ideas that I 
support in concept and have worked on with him and in other venues to 
try to put something together, but we just have never been able to 
overcome the regional differences. As the chairman said, this may be a 
start where we can start trying to work through this.
  I just would like to say to Members, I think one of the reasons we 
are in this problem is our own fault, because we have written dairy 
legislation not in the committee; we have written it on the floor.
  Ever since I have been here, we have been through this fight; and we 
end up writing these bills on the floor, and I would argue that one of 
the reasons the program is having so much of a problem is because we 
have done it this way. We have kind of brought this on ourselves.
  I understand the pressures that people have in the Northeast and the 
Southeast. I have been all over this country. I have talked to dairy 
farmers in every part of the country. I have sat through thousands of 
hours of hearings and meetings; and if the chairman and I knew a way to 
work this out, we would have done it a long time ago.
  The concerns that I have with the present amendment go along the 
lines of what the chairman said; but in addition to that, I have looked 
at these floors, whether they be on Class III or Class I or whatever, 
and I have become convinced that if we do any kind of a floor at this 
level without very strong mandatory supply management, we are going to 
get so much milk that we are not going to know what to do with it, and 
we are going to collapse the prices down to price supports. We have 
been kind of through that. I think some of the reason that has happened 
is because of the legislation that we put together on this floor the 
last couple of times.
  So the supply management component that is in here, I applaud the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for recognizing the need for that, 
but I do not have a lot of confidence that this is going to be enough 
to be workable.
  The Secretary along with me working through this and trying to put 
together a national coalition on supply management, which I have been 
doing over the last couple of years, has indicated to me that she is 
not really in favor of supply management; and I have some real 
questions about whether the Department would implement a program that 
would actually be workable.
  The last thing we need to do is pass legislation that is going to 
make the situation worse, rather than better. I think that that may be 
the outcome of this legislation if we did not have a very strong supply 
management component to make sure that we do not overproduce and end up 
with big surpluses.
  So I think sitting here today and spending all this time listening to 
the compact debate, and now we are in another debate here this evening, 
I think it is time we admit where we are at with this. We cannot get 
these regions of the country to agree with each other, and I am not 
sure we ever can.
  Apparently the different regions of the country are bound and 
determined to have their own system, so I have talked to the chairman 
today about the possibility of he and I putting together legislation 
that would end the dairy program at the Federal level of the United 
States. The only thing the industry agrees on, the only one thing, is a 
$9.99 price support. The reason is, after they get done with all of the 
things they are doing and they want us to bail them out at the end, 
well, if these States want to do this and if they want to go off and do 
their own thing, I think that is fine. Then we should get stepped back 
out of this, get rid of the price support system, get the Federal 
Government out of this system, and let the States set up their own 
process as they see fit.
  I would be more than willing to support legislation to allow them to 
form the compacts in any way that they want, and then they could set up 
their own purchase system if they produced too much or supply 
management or whatever it is. But I have become convinced this is the 
answer to this problem, because all we are doing with what we are 
continuing on with here is making things worse every time we pass a new 
dairy bill.
  So I am going to ask the chairman that we put a bill together in this 
fashion, and I would ask him that we have hearings on it and we 
seriously look at it.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman and I discussed earlier off 
the floor, I do think that it is time that we start looking at whether 
or not we need a Federal order system, whether the Federal Government 
should be involved at all, because if we are going to adopt a number of 
compacts, if we are going to have these state-run systems, quite 
frankly, the Federal taxpayer should not be the one who has to absorb 
the mistakes of all of these systems.
  If that is the direction we are going to go, if Congress in its 
infinite wisdom decides we are going to allow compacts and we are going 
to allow States to adopt their own system, then the Federal taxpayer 
should not be expected to bail them out when they make a mistake.
  So I will work with the gentleman. We will work toward putting a bill 
together that tries to accomplish that. We will hold hearings on it, 
and we will open the debate and allow the Congress to work its will.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the chairman. In my judgment it is unfortunate we are getting to this 
situation. But people need to understand that if we put the price of 
milk at a high level, dairy farmers are very good at producing and they 
are going to make milk; and they are going to make more milk than we 
can consume, and we are going to have a problem figuring out what to do 
with it. That has been the problem over the last number of years. That 
is why I say that this amendment may be workable if we had a very 
strong supply management component, but I am skeptical we are going to 
get one, given the current administration and given the division in the 
industry.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chance to get that off my chest.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


 Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Sanders:
       Strike paragraph (6) of subsection (b) of the section being 
     added by the amendment and insert the following:
       (6) Payments from processors to trust fund.--
       (A) In general.--During any month for which the Secretary 
     estimates that the average price paid by processors for Class 
     I milk in a District will not exceed a target price 
     applicable to that District, each processor in a 
     participating State in the District that purchases Class I 
     milk from an eligible producer during the month shall pay to 
     the Secretary for deposit in the Trust Fund an amount 
     obtained by multiplying--
       (i) the payment rate determined under subparagraph (B); by
       (ii) the quantity of Class I milk purchased from the 
     eligible producer during the month.
       (B) Payment rate.--The payment rate for a payment made by a 
     processor that purchases Class I milk in a participating 
     State in a District under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be equal 
     to--
       (i) in the case of a marketing area in the District, the 
     difference between--

       (I) the target price for that marketing area; and
       (II) the minimum price required to be paid to eligible 
     producers for Class I milk in that marketing area; and

       (ii) in the case of an area in the District not covered by 
     an order, the difference between--

       (I) the target price for the area determined by the 
     Secretary under subparagraph (C); and
       (II) the minimum price determined by the Secretary, taking 
     into account the minimum price referred to in clause (i) in 
     adjacent marketing areas.

       (C) Target prices.--In the paragraph, the term ``target 
     price'' means--
       (i) $17.50 per hundredweight, in the case of the Northeast 
     marketing area;
       (ii) $17.35 per hundredweight, in the case of the 
     Appalachian marketing area;
       (iii) $18.25 per hundredweight, in the case of the Florida 
     marketing area;

[[Page H6361]]

       (iv) $17.35 per hundredweight, in the case of the Southeast 
     marketing area;
       (v) $16.05 per hundredweight, in the case of the Upper 
     Midwest marketing area;
       (vi) $16.25 per hundredweight, in the case of the Central 
     marketing area;
       (vii) $16.25 per hundredweight, in the case of the Mideast 
     marketing area;
       (viii) $16.15 per hundredweight, in the case of the Pacific 
     Northwest marketing area;
       (ix) $17.25 per hundredweight, in the case of the Southwest 
     marketing area;
       (x) $16.60 per hundredweight, in the case of the Arizona-
     Las Vegas marketing area;
       (xi) $16.15 per hundredweight, in the case of the Western 
     marketing area; and
       (xii) in the case of an area not covered by an order, a 
     price per hundredweight determined by the Secretary, taking 
     into account the target prices in adjacent marketing areas.

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the previous order of today, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, no one in this Chamber has been more opposed to 
regional dairy compacts than have I. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) and I have exchanged many a strong word about that subject. 
But I participated in several meetings in the Speaker's office a while 
back, meetings which he hosted to try to see if there was not some way 
you could overcome the regional differences on the issue of dairy. At 
that time, the Speaker was lamenting the fact that the regions did not 
seem to be able to get together in any way.
  The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has, I believe, brought to 
the House an approach which, although I believe it needs refinement, 
could in fact accomplish that purpose; and I want to congratulate him 
for it. I intend to vote for the amendment, even though I have been 
totally opposed to the idea of regional compacts, because I think the 
gentleman offers us a way to raise dairy farm income without 
discriminating geographically or regionally across the United States. 
So I would urge that the gentleman's amendment be adopted.
  It just seems to me that we need make no apology for trying to find 
ways to raise dairy income. The effect of the gentleman's amendment, I 
believe, would be to marginally increase dairy income in all sections 
of the country, and it has provisions that guard against oversupply; 
and it has provisions which equalize the burden of doing that. I think 
it is the most imaginative effort to overcome regional differences that 
I have seen in the last 4 or 5 years.
  I do think it has one defect, and I have an amendment that would 
correct that; and I would ask the House, however they intend to vote on 
the Sanders amendment, to simply adopt my amendment to perfect the 
Sanders amendment before we proceed to vote on it.
  As written, the amendment essentially provides for one Class I price, 
the price of milk for fluid use all across the country. The problem is 
that currently there are differences in Class I price in different 
regions of the country. Those differences are used to facilitate the 
movement of milk between regions, especially during times of short 
supply.
  By having a single unified price we would interfere with that 
process, and my amendment would simply adjust the numbers in the bill 
so that regardless of the size of the differentials in regions, you 
would take those differentials into account in setting the different 
regional prices in the gentleman's amendment. I would urge, however you 
intend to vote on the Sanders amendment, to adopt this amendment before 
you vote on that.
  Having said that, I would like to ask the gentleman a question, if 
the gentleman would engage in a colloquy.
  My understanding is that under the gentleman's proposal, a 50- or 
100-cow farmer in Minnesota or Wisconsin where a Class I utilization is 
relatively low would receive the same payment as a 50- or 100-cow 
farmer in Florida or Vermont, or anywhere else a Class I utilization is 
higher. Is that correct?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Payments would be made based upon the production, up to a 
limit of 500,000 pounds of milk per month, and not based on whether the 
milk would go into manufacturing products such as cheese or butter or 
fluid use. Is that correct?
  Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will yield further, that is absolutely 
correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think this issue is 
extremely important for farmers all over the country, because with this 
kind of a nationalized arrangement, we would, for the first time, 
enable the gentleman's farmers in his area of the country to receive a 
higher price for their product without penalizing farmers in my region 
or any other region of the country.
  If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, I would certainly want his 
assurances that that national pooling provision would not be eliminated 
at any time during the process, if he had anything to do with it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, he 
has my absolute assurances.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding we are dealing with 
Class I.
  Mr. OBEY. That is right.
  Mr. POMBO. I think I heard the gentleman say Class III.
  Mr. OBEY. No.
  Mr. POMBO. So what we are talking about is the Class I milk would be 
the same price, whether you are in Wisconsin or Vermont?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes.
  Mr. POMBO. What about California?
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes. If California voluntarily chooses to come into the 
program, the answer is yes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, could I ask the gentleman 
a favor? Because I have only 10 minutes on this amendment, I would like 
to limit the discussion to my amendment to the Sanders amendment, and 
then I think the gentleman can deal with other potential problems with 
the Sanders amendment on the gentleman's time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I am 
trying to figure out what the gentleman's amendment will do.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the problem that the gentleman has now is 
that each region has a different differential payment. If you have one 
uniform price that is paid all across the country, then in effect 
farmers are not getting the same benefit if they live in a region that 
has a lower differential as opposed to a higher differential, and you 
in fact place an undue burden on processors in certain parts of the 
country who would be making up the difference between, in fact, the 
floor price and the market price. That was an inadvertent mistake in 
the gentleman's amendment, and I am simply trying to correct it in the 
event that it would pass.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I 
look forward to working with him so that we can protect the farmers in 
Vermont and Wisconsin and every other region in this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  I would hope that the gentleman from California and the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) would really reconsider their opposition 
to this amendment. It is absolutely true that more analysis needs to be 
done, no question about it, and questions have to be answered. But this 
amendment has some at least real potential for resolving an issue that 
has deeply divided this House and deeply divides America on farm policy 
by region.

[[Page H6362]]

  Now, I would like the amendment to allow much more opportunity for 
consumer-based boards to have a say in this process at the regional 
level. That has been one of the strengths of the compact approach. I 
think when a State decides to enter this program, they should also set 
up a board that has consumers on it to begin to watch the price and see 
how much this helps their farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret the fact that the chairman of the committee 
and others on it who have a great deal of influence on policy cannot be 
bothered to listen.

                              {time}  2200

  Because I heard passionate speeches all day about how much your 
farmers need the subsidies in this bill. Do my colleagues not 
understand that our dairy farmers are in exactly the same position in 
New England and they get nothing. And they are going to go under if we 
cannot either extend the dairy compact or find a different way for our 
region?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, does the gentlewoman not understand that I 
represent more dairy farmers than she does? Does she not understand 
that I have more cows than she does?
  Ms. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I must reclaim my time. The 
Constitution was finely written when they found a way for small States 
to be able to have a voice equal to big States. So I understand the 
gentleman represents more farmers than I do, but it does not make the 
survival of any individual farm in Connecticut of any lesser value than 
the survival of a farm anywhere else in the country. That is all I am 
saying.
  What I want my colleagues to think about is that this approach, 
integrating this issue and solving it through the existing marketing 
order through a system that is voluntary, that I think could be made 
more flexible and responsive to consumer interests as we work on it and 
analyze it, offers the best hope that we have had so far to really 
recognize the needs of dairy farmers across America.
  The marketing order system is a one-size-fits-all. The reason we 
fight about dairy policy is because one size does not fit all anymore, 
and this amendment does offer us the opportunity, within a national 
umbrella, to begin to find a way for regions to manage in a way that 
supports farmers. That is our interest, to support farmers.
  So I am pleased that we do have a supply management provision in 
here. The compact has been successful at that. Most dairy policies 
nationally have not been successful at managing supply, and it has not 
cost the national taxpayers a dime. I urge my colleagues to give it a 
chance. Let us talk this out. Perhaps we can deal with it in the 
conference.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for 
his effort in putting this amendment together. We have had this fight 
for years. We have had this fight for hours today about removing these 
regional disparities with respect to dairy, and that has been a fight 
that we have had for a long, long time. I unfortunately believe it is a 
fight we are going to continue to have.
  But this amendment is so broad and so sweeping and so comprehensive 
in so many ways that it leaves a lot of unanswered questions on the 
table. One of the concerns I have, which is a question or a concern is 
that, A, we have not seen a large scale analysis as to its real effect 
across the country. I really do not know what this is going to do to 
the dairy farmers in Wisconsin. One of the concerns I have is that this 
could incentivize an oversupply of class 1 price, which could turn over 
and depress the price of class 3 milk, which is what we produce where I 
come from. So I am concerned that this may actually depress our class 3 
price in the upper Midwest.
  But I do applaud this effort. I think it is high time we think 
outside the box and try and get rid of the regionalism that has too 
long plagued this debate, but it is just not ready for prime time, in 
my opinion.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's sentiments, 
and I am the first to admit that more work needs to be done. But I 
think the gentleman will agree with me. The gentleman has seen some of 
the best people in his State lose their farms and go out of business. I 
have seen the same thing. I think we have to work together. I think 
this is a good start. We do not have a lot of time. I would appreciate 
the gentleman's support for the amendment and work with us so that we 
can make this a good amendment for Wisconsin and the Northeast and the 
whole country.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has my pledge to 
work with him on fixing this process. By this time tomorrow night, we 
are going to lose four dairy farms in the State of Wisconsin at the 
pace we are at right now. We have lost more dairy farms in the State of 
Wisconsin in the last 10 years than any other State in the country has 
ever had, save Minnesota. I want to expand on those points, but I do 
think that there are a lot of unanswered questions with this amendment. 
I applaud the effort. I hope we can work together after this to finish 
this.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who has been a real fighter for family farms.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders 
amendment, and I wanted to congratulate the gentleman from Vermont for 
really making a breakthrough here on an issue that has been divisive 
and to say also to the gentleman from Wisconsin, on this issue, if the 
folks from Vermont and Wisconsin can get together on this effort, we 
really do have what we have been trying to talk about and create an 
effort here that does the best for the people in this country and in 
this instance to the dairy farmers of this country.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) spoke a minute ago; 
and we do have dairy farms, albeit not as many as other people in this 
body have, but I think she was absolutely correct in saying that their 
livelihood, their ability to succeed equals that ability to succeed of 
dairy farmers all over this great country of ours. That is what this 
amendment is all about.
  This is meant to enhance the income of all dairy farmers, no matter 
where they come from. It is a voluntary program. There are no mandates 
here. It costs the taxpayer nothing. It would be administered through 
regional boards; it would distribute the funds to the dairy farmers 
that are in need of them. It deals in many ways with the complexity of 
trying to look at the price differentials, and that is critical.
  Is it all ironed out? No. But it is such a very good start to 
something that has been such a divisive issue in this body. It brings 
benefits, yes, to the Northeast and to my dairy farmers, and it brings 
that kind of success that we had with that Northeast dairy compact to 
the rest of the dairy farmers around the country. It preserves small 
dairy farmers all over the country; it allows them to do what they want 
to do and that is to pass their farms on to the next generation. It is 
a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair 
would advise Members that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has 
6\1/4\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 
4\1/4\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 
7\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Like so many others tonight, let me begin by saying that I sincerely 
appreciate the effort that the gentleman from Vermont has shown. It is 
innovative because it takes a small step away from regionalism and 
towards national policy, and that is obviously something that many of 
us have been arguing for for a long time.

[[Page H6363]]

  Regrettably, I cannot support this amendment right now. I hope to be 
able to support the concept as it is refined later on. One reason I 
cannot support it is that in its current form, it does not add to 
clarity or simplicity in dairy policy, something that I think is very 
important. We need predictability and clarity for our dairy farmers, 
for our producers, so they have a system they can rely upon, a system 
they can believe in.
  Secondly, I am troubled by the fact that class 3 prices, payments are 
dependent upon annual appropriations. I am not sure we want our dairy 
farmers to be subject to the whims and fancies of this institution and 
its appropriations process.
  Tonight I think we have taken an important step forward, though, 
because in the debate we have had tonight, we have recognized that 
dairy farmers all across this Nation are suffering.
  To the gentlewoman from Connecticut who spoke earlier who said quite 
passionately that the loss of her farms is no less important than the 
loss of farms elsewhere, I would agree; but I would remind her that 
regionalism which has helped her dairy farms cause our losses to be 
because of her dairy policy.
  The other side has talked passionately about losses of hundreds of 
dairy farms. Tonight, in our State of Wisconsin, I heard the gentleman 
from the first district of Wisconsin speak, we talk about thousands. By 
tomorrow night this time, my State will have lost four more dairy 
farms.
  So we need to move towards a national policy. I commend the gentleman 
for his small step in that direction, and I pledge to work with him. 
Hopefully we can fix this and get to a national policy.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and say to my 
friend from Wisconsin, the gentleman has described that he is losing 
four farms a day; he has described that perhaps no other State in this 
country has lost more family farms than his great State; he has 
described the pain and the sadness that the people of his State are 
feeling in this transition. Yet, we keep talking about that, we keep 
talking about the loss of farms in the Northeast and then we say, well, 
this is not perfect.
  Well, I have a problem with that, oh, gee, this one does not work in 
every part of the country. I understand that. But the gentleman is 
going to lose four more farms tomorrow, and I will lose a farm. We are 
giving our colleagues a blueprint, an outline. If we reject this, 
nothing will happen this year, in my view, to protect family farmers; 
and we are going to continue to lose the farms.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to work with us to develop a 
national policy that works for Wisconsin, that works for Vermont. This 
is a step forward. It is not the end-all. There are folks in the Senate 
who are sympathetic to this concept. We have time to refine it. So I 
would urge the support of my colleagues for this amendment tonight.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say as a matter of good faith, I have, as 
I said earlier, opposed the idea of compacts for years. I think they 
have been divisive; I think this ought to be one country. I do not 
think we ought to have a Balkanized milk marketing arrangement.
  What the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is trying to do here is 
to find a way to enable us to raise income, however marginally, for 
dairy farmers, because of his desperate concern about their viability 
long term.
  Now, I do not think this is a perfect arrangement by any means. I 
have substantial questions about it. But I do have confidence in the 
ability of this committee if this were adopted to rationalize it in 
conference so that it would be workable for the country. I think if 
ever there was a time when we need to try to find unifying efforts in 
this country, in all fields, it is now. This may not be perfect, but it 
is the only, it is the only proposition I have seen in 5 years time 
that tries to bridge regional differences in the dairy area.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it does it in a fairly effective way. I have 
not had much time to look at it either, and I recognize what the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) says, and I recognize what the 
chairman of the committee says, and I am sure the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) feels the same way, that this is not fully worked out. 
But I think in the end it is better than saying to the country, we are 
going to do nothing significant to raise dairy prices over the long 
term.
  Right now my farmers are getting more money for milk than they have 
gotten in a long time. That is not going to last very long. If we do 
not do something tonight to at least look for ways to raise that 
income, for the next 5 years, we are going to be going home and saying 
to our constituents, sorry, there is not anything we can do it.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the only device that I see on the board that 
gives us the opportunity to do something about it, and I personally 
would urge its adoption, and I thank both sides for their courtesy.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how many more speakers the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has?
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, none at the current time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Combest) has the right to close.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me make my concluding remarks. Let me pick up on the point that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made.
  Those of us who come from rural America and those of us who know 
family farms are touched emotionally by this issue. So for those people 
who are not from farm areas, they may not understand the passion 
involved in this discussion. We know that our farmers are some of the 
very best people in our States. They love the land. They protect the 
environment. They work, in some cases, seven days a week. In my State 
we have many farmers who make 15, 20, $25,000 a year working 60 or 70 
hours a week. What their dream is is to leave the land that they 
inherited from their parents to their kids.
  When I drive around the State of Vermont, I never cease to get a very 
positive feeling and a wonderful feeling when I go through the rural 
areas of my State, which are so beautiful, and I am sure that that 
feeling is matched by those in other States who also appreciate what 
their farmers are doing.
  Mr. Chairman, we are up against the wall. For years we have been 
talking about how we protect the family farm, not only in dairy, but in 
every other commodity and we are losing. The best people in our country 
are being forced off the land because they cannot live on the paltry 
amounts of money that they are getting for their commodities, be it 
milk or any other commodity.
  What is happening in dairy is happening in industry after industry. 
The little people are being driven off of the land and industry is 
being consolidated and the big get bigger and they control the 
industry. We are seeing in the New England area some processes who now 
control 80 percent of the purchase of milk and that is true in other 
regions of country.
  Our friends from Wisconsin say they are losing four farms a day. How 
much time do we have to continue the debate? I agree with what the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said. This is not a perfect 
amendment. It needs more work. But let us come together let us make it 
a better bill so that it works better for South or the West or the 
Midwest or the Northeast. We can do this.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe there is support in the Senate for this 
concept. Let us not say, no, no, no, it is not perfect. It is not 
perfect that our farmers are being driven off the land. Let us draw the 
line and try to do something. This is a good-faith effort to bring 
people together to save some of the best people in our country. I would 
hope that this body could support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H6364]]

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if we look at the facts as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) mentioned, his dairymen, my dairymen are doing quite well 
today. In fact, the September Federal price in the compact area is 
$18.81. The compact price is $16.94.
  Some regions of the country, my district, for example, my State, a 
few months ago were in favor of the compact but began to see some of 
the problems associated with it and began to look at what they can do 
to help themselves. Lo and behold, they are finding that they can do a 
lot to avoid a collapse of milk prices by working together with the 
manufacturers, with the retail stores.
  It would seem to me the Northeast has a wonderful opportunity now to 
do just that. To do it with this legislation of which I too, I join in 
saying I know what the gentleman is trying to do. But we cannot put 
together dairy policy for the Nation in a matter of a few hours to 
overcome a problem regarding legislation on compacts. No matter how 
much we say we would like to do it, it cannot be done.
  The main thing for dairymen right now is to understand if they want 
to keep getting price, they have to manage their inventory and they are 
the only ones that can do that. If they set the price too high, they 
will get more production. It is just going to happen.
  There are ways we can do it. I will join with the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
all to continue to look at how we do it.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) a moment ago said it best 
when he said, and I will paraphrase him, any State that wishes to go 
their own way can go their own way.
  If that is what we really want to do is start going individual State 
compacts, then let us do it. Let us eliminate the Federal market order 
system and let us go it our own. I happen to believe that maybe 
dairymen would be better off with that; but the dairy industry is not 
ready to go there yet because just as the chairman, the ranking member 
said in all the hearings that they sat through again and all the years 
in which I was chairman of the Dairy Committee, we never were able 
quite to get there.
  Let us conclude by saying this, if there is one thing that has been 
effusive throughout the debate today is the recognition of the 
necessity of getting a higher price to our producers for what they 
produce, whether it is milk, whether it is sugar, whether it is cotton, 
whether it is wheat, whether it is soybeans, whether it is corn, 
whatever it is we are growing, we cannot grow it cheaper than what we 
have been doing.
  The question is how do we get the price? I submit that we need to use 
this opportunity today in all areas of the country to do what is 
happening in some, recognizing that through true cooperative effort 
among dairymen within regions, within States is the best way to do it.
  Therefore, I again, as I have done all night, reluctantly, in this 
case not so reluctantly, because in all honesty, we cannot legislate 
dairy policy in a manner in which has been described tonight and do 
justice.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would remind the Members that the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time remains to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time and I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for this very constructive 
debate. This is the first time I think since I have been here, we have 
had actually a constructive discussion about dairy policy. I appreciate 
the frustration, particularly of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) on issues that are important to him. We are in the Committee 
of the Whole, and this is the opportunity we have to offer these kind 
of amendments.
  I am afraid that I and my staff were trying to figure out exactly 
what this amendment, and with the amendment from the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), would mean. We had a very difficult time sorting 
all of this out, and I suspect that was even true for some of the 
experts that worked for the committee and perhaps even down at the 
USDA.
  What I am concerned about, it has been mentioned already, is the law 
of unintended consequences. This is a place, of course, where we write 
law, but it is also an area where we can make bad law, and I am afraid 
what will happen with this amendment if we raise the price of Class I 
milk, and this is what a couple of our colleagues said earlier. Class I 
milk that goes into fluid milk, if we raise that price too high, 
whether it is in Vermont or anywhere else in the United States, what 
ultimately will happen is we will increase production because we do 
write law in this Chamber, we amend laws in this Chamber.
  There is one law we can neither amend nor change, and that is the law 
of supply and demand. That really is what is at the core of the problem 
we have with dairy policy, because if we artificially set prices too 
high we increase the supply and we may forestall some of those farmers 
going out of business, but ultimately, we are only going to forestall 
the day when that will happen.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if my colleague saw it, but 
we have very strong supply management components in the legislation.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is good, but 
again, we cannot exactly analyze how that will work, but ultimately, 
again, if we try to artificially raise the prices too high, 
particularly for fluid milk, it backs up into what we call Class III 
milk, which is 85 percent of the milk produced in my district, 
ultimately winding up going into cheese, and that is where the problem 
begins to really get difficult for us.
  So while I recognize the frustration of trying to make an amendment 
here on the floor of the House in the Committee of the Whole, which is 
the appropriate place, I really do hope that my colleague will take the 
offer that has been made, that we can work on this as we go forward.
  It does not have to be part of this farm bill. I think there are a 
growing number of people here that really believe the time has come to 
at least scrap everything we have and start with a blank sheet of 
paper. Our friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) did not do 
it this year, but a couple of years ago he read on the floor of the 
House the formula that is used today in the milk marketing order 
system. It is unbelievably complicated. There are only I think three 
people in Washington who completely understand it, and I understand 
that there is a rule at USDA that no two of them could be on the same 
airplane at the same time.
  We really do need to have a new dairy policy. It needs to be more 
simple, it needs to be more understandable, and we must make certain 
that it does not have unintended consequences.
  With the deepest respect, I will oppose the amendment, and I hope my 
colleagues will join me.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule I, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum 5 minutes the period of time 
within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

[[Page H6365]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 224, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 368]

                               AYES--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Collins
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Burton
     Callahan
     Gibbons
     Houghton
     Issa
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Olver
     Serrano
     Visclosky
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2249

  Messrs. OTTER, LIPINSKI, DICKS, THOMPSON of Mississippi, KIRK, WAMP, 
SCHIFF, KINGSTON, DINGELL, FORD, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. NEY, BAKER, SAXTON, TAYLOR of North Carolina, WHITFIELD, 
RUSH, BOYD, Mrs. CLAYTON, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mrs. EMERSON, and Ms. 
KILPATRICK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
clause 6 on rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments 
on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order: 
amendment No. 15 by Mrs. Clayton of North Carolina; amendment No. 11 by 
Mrs. Bono of California.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mrs. Clayton

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 183, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 369]

                               AYES--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey

[[Page H6366]]


     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--183

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Burton
     Callahan
     Gibbons
     Houghton
     Issa
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Olver
     Serrano
     Visclosky
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2259

  Mr. CALVERT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2300


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Bono

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The pending 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 296, 
noes 121, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 370]

                               AYES--296

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--121

     Akin
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Castle
     Clement
     Combest
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     DeMint
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Etheridge
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Frank
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Hinojosa
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Weller
     Wilson

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Burton
     Callahan
     Gibbons
     Houghton
     Issa
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Olver
     Roukema
     Serrano
     Visclosky
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2308

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mrs. TAUSCHER, and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ackerman

  Mr. ACKERMAN. 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. 2 offered by Mr. Ackerman:
       At the end of title IX (page 354, after line 16), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. ____. UNLAWFUL STOCKYARD PRACTICES INVOLVING 
                   NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.

       Title III of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, (7 
     U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

[[Page H6367]]

     ``SEC. 318. UNLAWFUL STOCKYARD PRACTICES INVOLVING 
                   NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Humanely euthanize.--The term `humanely euthanize' 
     means to kill an animal by mechanical, chemical, or other 
     means that immediately render the animal unconscious, with 
     this state remaining until the animal's death.
       ``(2) Nonambulatory livestock.--The term `nonambulatory 
     livestock' means any livestock that is unable to stand and 
     walk unassisted.
       ``(b) Unlawful Practices.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall be unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or 
     dealer to buy, sell, give, receive, transfer, market, hold, 
     or drag any nonambulatory livestock unless the nonambulatory 
     livestock has been humanely euthanized.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Non-gipsa farms.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
     any farm the animal care practices of which are not subject 
     to the authority of the Grain Inspection, Packers, and 
     Stockyards Administration.
       ``(B) Veterinary care.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a 
     case in which nonambulatory livestock receive veterinary care 
     intended to render the livestock ambulatory.
       ``(c) Application of Prohibition.--Subsection (b) shall 
     apply beginning one year after the date of the enactment of 
     the Farm Security Act of 2001. By the end of such period, the 
     Secretary shall promulgate regulations to carry out this 
     section.''.

  (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment to 
prevent the marketing of downed animals.
  As I stand here before you, the most horrific problem of animal abuse 
in the meat industry continues unchecked. A sick cow, unable to stand, 
is pulled off a truck by a tractor with a chain, then falls 4 feet to 
the ground at a stockyard. A frail day-old calf is dragged through an 
auction ring by a rope tied to its back leg while another calf, nearly 
comatose, is left in a corner dying. These are downed animals. The 
transport and marketing of these incapacitated animals creates 
tremendous human health concerns as well as humane concerns.
  These animals, known as downers, suffer beyond belief as they are 
kicked, dragged, and prodded with electric shocks in an effort to move 
them at auctions and intermediate markets en route to slaughter. They 
make up nearly one-tenth of 1 percent of the market. And not to 
euthanize them just because they are of no value when they are dead at 
marketplace is indeed a sin.
  It is practically impossible to move these animals humanely, so they 
are commonly dragged with chains and pushed around with tractors and 
fork lifts. In addition to brutal handling, downed animals routinely 
suffer for days without food, water, or veterinary attention. Livestock 
markets are not equipped nor can they be expected to provide these 
incapacitated animals with the intensive care they require, nor do we 
wish to saddle them with these costs. The only humane option for 
nonambulatory livestock at intermediate markets is euthanasia.
  My amendment to protect both the public health and the downed animals 
prohibits marketing of all nonambulatory livestock at intermediate 
markets, and it requires that incapacitated animals be humanely 
euthanized at these facilities. This amendment does not apply to 
activities on farms, and it does not preclude veterinary care. It 
provides an appropriate remedy to an unnecessary and inexcusable 
practice.
  The problem of downed animals has been addressed by many 
conscientious livestock organizations who have voluntarily adopted a 
no-downer policy in an effort to end this inhumane and cruel practice 
which can also pose a serious threat to our public health. Meat from 
downed animals has an increased risk for bacterial contamination and 
other diseases, including neurological afflictions such as mad cow 
disease. The veterinary services department at the USDA itself, Mr. 
Chairman, has said that downed animals are the number two risk for mad 
cow disease. This is not a fringe idea.
  Last year, the USDA itself instituted a policy precluding the 
purchase of beef from downed animals for the national school lunch 
program because of these safety concerns.

                              {time}  2315

  How on God's Earth can they justify marketing this to the rest of the 
country, when they say it is unsafe to put in our school lunch program?
  In addition to this, the fast food chains are doing the appropriate 
thing. Chains such as McDonald's and Burger King and Wendy's have all 
banned the use of meat from downed animals in their products. And who 
else? California, the largest cattle producer in the country, Colorado 
and Illinois, have already prohibited the entry of downed animals into 
the food supply. Why just them? All Americans must be protected from 
this risk.
  And who else is in support? This measure is endorsed by the Central 
Livestock Association, which is composed of 25,000 producers in five 
Midwestern States alone. It is endorsed by Empire Livestock Marketing, 
the Georgia Cattlemen's Association, and the National Pork Producers 
Council; and the National Cattlemen's Beef Producer Association have 
put in their code of ethics that they will not use downers.
  And yet, and yet, there are some who kowtow to the few irresponsible 
folks within the industry in order to protect only one-tenth of 1 
percent of the market.
  Earlier this year a Zogby America Poll of 1,000 people in our country 
found that four out of every five opposed the use of downed animals for 
human food. Yet despite a strong consensus within the livestock 
industry, the animal welfare movement and 80 percent of consumers that 
downed animals should not be sent to the stockyards, this practice 
continues, causing unnecessary animal suffering and an erosion of the 
public confidence in their food. We need to remedy this atrocity.
  I urge all who are concerned about public health, all who are 
concerned about the humane treatment of animals to support the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ackerman was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask all Members to join in supporting 
the Ackerman amendment to help bring an end to the horrific abuse of 
our Nation's food animals and to protect our Nation's food supply. I 
ask that all of us vote in favor of the amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The 
hour is late, Mr. Chairman, but I think this is an important amendment; 
and I rise in strong support of the Ackerman-Houghton downed animal 
amendment. I want to thank them for bringing this issue to the floor.
  This amendment would prohibit the marketing of non-ambulatory 
livestock, or so-called downed animals, at intermediate markets and 
would require these sick animals to be humanely euthanized. This 
amendment is important for two simple reasons: humans should not be 
exposed to food at risk for contamination, and there absolutely is no 
excuse for animal cruelty.
  Animal cruelty can and should be minimized in our country's 
slaughterhouses. Downed animals, unable to walk on their own, are 
almost impossible to humanely move due to sheer size and weight. 
Instead, they are chained, pulled, dragged, and prodded with electric 
shocks.
  Current policies do nothing to force handlers to treat sick animals 
humanely, and instead some of them are even pushed by bulldozers into 
dead piles, where they eventually succumb to their injuries in 
unimaginable pain.
  Equally important, meat from downed animals is at risk for bacterial 
contamination. According to a recent Zogby poll, four out of five 
Americans oppose the use of downed animals for food. Also the USDA has 
instituted a policy precluding the purchase of beef from downed animals 
for national school lunch programs because they believe this meat is 
unsafe for consumption. That should tell us something.
  Our Nation must humanely produce meat that is safe for everyone to 
eat. Due to the obvious animal suffering and the threat to human health 
that downed animals pose, humane euthanasia is the only reasonable 
solution. It is civilized to oppose needless animal cruelty and 
inexcusable to allow it to continue.

[[Page H6368]]

  Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
the Ackerman-Houghton amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to make a few observations for our colleagues. The 
Animal Welfare Act already contains provisions that forbid needless 
intentional abuse of livestock anywhere. Also I want to make my 
colleagues aware of the concern of the American Veterinary Medical 
Association regarding the prohibition on holding downer animals could 
prevent diagnose and treatment of downer animals. Just because an 
animal is down does not mean necessarily that it cannot get up, 
provided you give it medication.
  Also our veterinarians tell us and USDA tells us that examination of 
downer livestock at markets and slaughter plants is an important part 
of our system to monitor for animal diseases such as BSE and 
tuberculosis. In other words, if we do not give our veterinarians time 
at livestock markets to examine what is truly wrong with that animal, 
if you immediately euthanize them, we perhaps may be setting back that 
which the authors of this amendment intend to happen.
  Now, I will not oppose the amendment tonight because, again, we all 
agree that animals should not be abused. That is already against the 
law. But I would hope as we pursue this through the conference and we 
work with the gentleman from New York to make sure that this 
accomplishes everything that he and those who support the amendment 
intend, but I would point these possible unintended consequences of 
this amendment that might need further work as we pursue it through the 
conference.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment by my colleagues 
from New York to prevent the marketing of downed livestock. On a daily 
basis, animals so sick that they can barely stand are dragged into the 
market to be sold to slaughterhouses. That is abusive and torturous, it 
is bad treatment of these sick and injured animals, it is cruel and it 
places our food supply at risk.
  In response to the fact that meat from downed animals is more likely 
to be contaminated, the USDA now prohibits the purchase of beef from 
downed animals into the National School Lunch Program. Major fast food 
restaurants forbid the use of downed animals in their products. While 
we can compliment these small measures, we must give the USDA the 
authority to deal with the downed animal problem.
  In order to protect both our animals and our food supply, we need to 
prevent the marketing of downed livestock. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in the support of this amendment.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Our agricultural 
policy in the United States has been very strong about humane treatment 
for animals that are to be used for profit. What this amendment does is 
address animals that will be slaughtered. These are animals that are in 
stockyards, that are going to either be auctioned or have been 
auctioned, and are downed, which means they are animals that have been 
injured. They tend to be either old dairy cows or male calves born into 
dairy herds and sold for veal.
  I think this amendment continues a policy which this House adopted a 
few years ago which said when you transport animals to slaughter that 
they have to be transported in a humane fashion. We have humane 
slaughter practices. We have humane transportation plants, not only for 
slaughter, but for every agricultural livestock animal there is, from 
chickens to rabbits. The whole gambit of transportation is controlled 
by Federal law and State law as well.
  The Zogby poll of U.S. adults found that 79 percent oppose the use of 
downed animals in human food supply. You have just heard of the 
prohibitions that we already have in law about using downed animals in 
certain school lunch programs and so on.
  What I want to remind the House is that in all cases these are 
animals that are being used for a profit, for corporate investment, to 
make a profit on the product of these animals, and what is being asked 
here is to adopt the same sound humane practices that we require for 
every other link in that chain.
  I think it is an appropriate amendment for us to address, and I hope 
the committee will adopt it.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the gentleman from New York that 
I think the committee would be certainly willing to accept the 
amendment.
  I do want to point out, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
did, some of the same concerns there are. No one is going to try to 
justify the inhumane treatment of an animal, but there are a couple of 
issues that I do think we need to try to make for sure that we address 
as we are looking through this.
  This has been an issue that for some time has obviously been 
discussed. It may have been the gentleman's bill back in 1996, H.R. 
2143, on which Secretary Glickman wrote a letter to the committee in 
this regard, and, again, just a couple of points. One of the things 
that I think highlights this is that it says, ``This bill may cause 
some producers of livestock to dispose of sick and diseased animals 
outside of normal marketing channels. This would increase the risk of 
these animals being slaughtered for human consumption without 
appropriate inspection.'' Obviously, I think, none of us would want 
that to occur.
  ``As well, downed animals are one of the bases of BSE or mad cow 
disease test regime.'' We certainly know the implications that this has 
in other countries, as it has had around the world, and how fortunate 
we are to be able to keep that out. I would not want us to do something 
that would in fact increase the chances of not being able to catch 
those diseases early.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman has no interest in any of these 
unintended consequences, but these are things that have been expressed 
and looked at over a period of time that we certainly would like to try 
to make sure we might be able to, as we work through this, even perfect 
more, without undermining the intent of the gentleman.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his accepting of 
our amendment. We really appreciate it. I am absolutely delighted to 
work with the gentleman on those concerns that he has just raised, 
which are very, very legitimate and are of concern to us to make sure 
these are ameliorated as it moves forward.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
and urge passage of the amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, the practice of marketing 
downed animals--animals unable to walk because of sickness or illness--
is an inhumane and disease-ridden practice. It's cruel to animals. It's 
bad for people. It's good for nothing.
  Many livestock yards pass on the costs and disposal of downed animals 
to slaughterhouses. Often, the result is torture. Downed animals which 
cannot move must be prodded and dragged to be transported from a 
livestock yard to a slaughterhouse. Bacterial infection runs high in 
downed animals.
  The Humane Society reports an elevated risk among downed animals for 
``Mad Cow Disease'' which has been fatal to humans. Since the majority 
of downed animals are milk cows contamination could be widespread. 
Unfortunately, the industry's self-imposed regulations against 
marketing downed animals are not being met.
  So we need to legislate uniform industry standards by passing the 
Ackerman amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 35 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 35 offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

[[Page H6369]]

           TITLE X--BIOFUELS ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 2001

     SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Biofuels Energy 
     Independence Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 1002. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Currently the United States annually consumes about 
     164,000,000,000 gallons of vehicle fuels and 5,600,00,000 
     gallons of heating oil. In 2000, 52.9 percent of these fuels 
     were imported, yielding a $109,000,000,000 trade deficit with 
     the rest of the world.
       (2) This Act would shift America's dependence away from 
     foreign petroleum as an energy source toward alternative, 
     renewable, domestic agricultural sources.
       (3) Strategic Petroleum Reserve policy should encourage 
     domestic production to the greatest extent possible.
       (4) 92.2 percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has 
     been purchased from foreign sources: 41.9 percent from 
     Mexico, 24 percent from the United Kingdom, and over 20 
     percent from OPEC nations.
       (5) Strategic Petroleum Reserve policy also should 
     encourage the development of alternatives to the Nation's 
     reliance on petroleum such as biomass fuels.
       (6) The benefits of biofuels are as follows:
       (A) Energy security.--
       (i) With agricultural commodity prices reaching record lows 
     and petroleum prices reaching record highs, it is clear that 
     more can and should be done to utilize domestic surpluses of 
     biobased oils to enhance the Nation's energy security.
       (ii) Biofuels can be manufactured using existing industrial 
     capacity.
       (ii) Biofuels can be used with existing petroleum 
     infrastructure and conventional equipment.
       (iv) Biofuels can start to address our dependence on 
     foreign energy sources immediately.
       (B) Economic security.--
       (i) With continued dependence upon imported sources of oil, 
     our Nation is strategically vulnerable to disruptions in our 
     oil supply.
       (ii) Renewable biofuels domestically produced have the 
     potential for ending this vulnerable dependence on imported 
     oil.
       (iii) Increased use of renewable biofuels would result in 
     significant economic benefits to rural and urban areas and 
     would help reduce the trade deficit.
       (iv) According to the Department of Agriculture, a 
     sustained annual market of 100,000,000 gallons of biodiesel 
     would result in $170,000,000 in increased income to farmers.
       (v) Farmer-owned biofuels production has already resulted 
     in improved income for farmers, as evidenced by the 
     experience with a State-supported program in Minnesota that 
     has helped to increase prices to corn producers by $1.00 per 
     bushel.
       (C) Environmental security.--
       (i) The use of grain-based ethanol reduces greenhouse gas 
     emissions from 35 to 46 percent compared with conventional 
     gasoline. Biomass ethanol provides an even greater reduction.
       (ii) The American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago 
     credits ethanol-blended reformulated gasoline with reducing 
     smog-forming emissions by 25 percent since 1990.
       (iii) Ethanol reduces tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions by 
     as much as 30 percent.
       (iv) Ethanol reduces exhaust volatile organic compounds 
     emissions by 12 percent.
       (v) Ethanol reduces toxic emissions by 30 percent.
       (vi) Ethanol reduces particulate emissions, especially 
     fine-particulates that pose a health threat to children, 
     senior citizens, and those with respiratory ailments.
       (vii) Biodiesel contains no sulfur of aromatics associated 
     with air pollution.
       (viii) The use of biodiesel provides a 78.5 percent 
     reduction in CO2 emissions compared to petroleum 
     diesel and when burned in a conventional engine provides a 
     substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon 
     monoxide, and particulate matter.

         Subtitle A--Biofuels Feedstocks Energy Reserve Program

     SEC. 1011. ESTABLISHMENT.

       The Secretary of Agriculture (in this subtitle referred to 
     as the ``Secretary'') may establish and administer a reserve 
     of agricultural commodities (known as the ``Biofuels 
     Feedstocks Energy Reserve'') for the purpose of--
       (1) providing feedstocks to support and further the 
     production of energy from biofuels; and
       (2) supporting the biofuels energy industry when production 
     is at risk of declining due to reduced feedstocks or 
     significant commodity price increases.

     SEC. 1012. PURCHASES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may purchase agricultural 
     commodities at commercial rates, subject to subsection (b), 
     in order to establish, maintain, or enhance the Biofuels 
     Feedstocks Energy Reserve when--
       (1)(A) the commodities are in abundant supply; and
       (B) there is need for adequate carryover stocks to ensure a 
     reliable supply of the commodities to meet the purposes of 
     the reserve; or
       (2) it is otherwise necessary to fulfill the needs and 
     purposes of the biofuels energy reserve program.
       (b) Limitation.--The agricultural commodities purchased for 
     the Biofuels Feedstocks Energy Reserve shall be--
       (1) of the type and quantity necessary to provide not less 
     than 1-year's utilization for renewable energy purposes; and
       (2) in such additional quantities to provide incentives for 
     research and development of new renewable fuels and bio-
     energy initiatives.

     SEC. 1013. RELEASE OF STOCKS.

       Whenever the market price of a commodity held in the 
     Biofuels Feedstocks Energy Reserve exceeds 100 percent of the 
     economic cost of producing the commodity (as determined by 
     the Economic Research Service using the best available 
     information, and based on a 3-year moving average), the 
     Secretary shall release stocks of the commodity from the 
     reserve at cost of acquisition, in amounts determined 
     appropriate by the Secretary.

     SEC. 1014. STORAGE PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide for the 
     storage of agricultural commodities purchased for the 
     Biofuels Feedstocks Energy Reserve by making payments to 
     producers for the storage of the commodities. The payments 
     shall--
       (1) be in such amounts, under such conditions, and at such 
     times as the Secretary determines appropriate to encourage 
     producers to participate in the program; and
       (2) reflect local, commercial storage rates, subject to 
     appropriate conditions concerning quality management and 
     other factors.
       (b) Announcement of Program.--
       (1) Time of announcement.--The Secretary shall announce the 
     terms and conditions of the storage payments for a crop of a 
     commodity by--
       (A) in the case of wheat, December 15 of the year in which 
     the crop of wheat was harvested;
       (B) in the case of feed grains, March 15 of the year 
     following the year in which the crop of corn was harvested; 
     and
       (C) in the case of other commodities, such dates as may be 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Content of announcement.--In the announcement, the 
     Secretary shall specify the maximum quantity of a commodity 
     to be stored in the Biofuels Feedstocks Energy Reserve that 
     the Secretary determines appropriate to promote the orderly 
     marketing of the commodity, and to ensure an adequate supply 
     for the production of biofuels.
       (c) Reconcentration.--The Secretary may, with the 
     concurrence of the owner of a commodity stored under this 
     program, reconcentrate the commodity stored in commercial 
     warehouses at such points as the Secretary considers to be in 
     the public interest, taking into account such factors as 
     transportation and normal marketing patterns. The Secretary 
     shall permit rotation of stocks and facilitate maintenance of 
     quality under regulations that assure that the holding 
     producer or warehouseman shall, at all times, have available 
     for delivery at the designated place of storage both the 
     quantity and quality of the commodity covered by the 
     producer's or warehouseman's commitment.
       (d) Management.--Whenever a commodity is stored under this 
     section, the Secretary may buy and sell at an equivalent 
     price, allowing for the customary location and grade 
     differentials, substantially equivalent quantities of the 
     commodity in different locations or warehouses to the extent 
     needed to properly handle, rotate, distribute, and locate the 
     commodity that the Commodity Credit Corporation owns or 
     controls. The purchases to offset sales shall be made within 
     2 market days following the sales. The Secretary shall make a 
     daily list available showing the price, location, and 
     quantity of the transactions.
       (e) Review.--In announcing the terms and conditions under 
     which storage payments will be made under this section, the 
     Secretary shall review standards concerning the quality of a 
     commodity to be stored in the Biofuels Feedstocks Energy 
     Reserve, and such standards should encourage only quality 
     commodities, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary 
     shall review inspection, maintenance, and stock rotation 
     requirements and take the necessary steps to maintain the 
     quality of the commodities stored in the reserve.

     SEC. 1015. USE OF COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.

       The Secretary shall use the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
     to the extent feasible, to carry out this subtitle. To the 
     maximum extent practicable consistent with the effective and 
     efficient administration of this subtitle, the Secretary 
     shall utilize the usual and customary channels, facilities, 
     and arrangements of trade and commerce.

     SEC. 1016. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 60 days after November 28, 2001, the 
     Secretary shall issue such regulations as are necessary to 
     carry out this subtitle.

               Subtitle B--Biofuels Financial Assistance

     SEC. 1021. LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Secretary'') may make and 
     guarantee loans for the production, distribution, 
     development, and storage of biofuels.
       (b) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     applicant for a loan or loan guarantee under this section 
     shall be eligible to receive such a loan or loan guarantee 
     if--
       (A) the applicant is a farmer, member of an association of 
     farmers, member of a farm cooperative, municipal entity, 
     nonprofit corporation, State, or Territory; and
       (B) the applicant is unable to obtain sufficient credit 
     elesewhere to finance the actual

[[Page H6370]]

     needs of the applicant at reasonable rates and terms, taking 
     into consideration prevailing private and cooperative rates 
     and terms in the community in or near which the applicant 
     resides for loans for similar purposes and periods of time.
       (2) Loan guarantee eligibility precludes loan 
     eligibility.--An applicant who is eligible for a loan 
     guarantee under this section shall not be eligible for a loan 
     under this section.
       (c) Loan Terms.--
       (1) Interest rate.--Interest shall be payable on a loan 
     under this section at the rate at which interest is payable 
     on obligations issued by United States for a similar period 
     of time.
       (2) Repayment period.--A loan under this section shall be 
     repayable in not less than 5 years and not more than 20 
     years.
       (d) Revolving Fund.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     revolving fund for the making of loans under this section.
       (2) Deposits.--The Secretary shall deposit into the 
     revolving fund all amounts received on account of loans made 
     under this section.
       (3) Payments.--The Secretary shall make loans under this 
     section, and make payments pursuant to loan guarantees 
     provided under this section, from amounts in the revolving 
     fund.
       (e) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section.
       (f) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--For 
     the cost (as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal Credit 
     Reform Act of 1990) of loans and loan guarantees under this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     revolving fund established under subsection (d) such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal years 2002 through 2009.

               Subtitle C--Funding Source and Allocations

     SEC. 1031. 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 $2,000,000,000 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.

            Modification to Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 1031 
that is a part of this amendment be replaced with the new version that 
was given to the desk and to both sides so that we could consider this 
in full.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
         Strike section 1031 of the amendment and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1031. 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 $2,000,000,000 the total amount 
     otherwise required to be paid under such sections in 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) $5,123,000,000 in fiscal year 2002; or
         (B) $5,224,000,000 in any of fiscal years 2003 through 
     2011; and
         (2) the total amount paid under section 105 does not 
     exceed--
         (A) $3,794,000,000 in fiscal year 2003;
         (B) $5,317,000,000 in fiscal year 2004;
         (C) $4,949,000,000 in fiscal year 2005;
         (D) $4,785,000,000 in fiscal year 2006;
         (E) $4,539,000,000 in fiscal year 2007;
         (F) $4,058,000,000 in fiscal year 2008;
         (G) $3,447,000,000 in fiscal year 2009;
         (H) $2,885,000,000 in fiscal year 2010; or
         (I) $2,495,000,000 in fiscal year 2011.

  Ms. KAPTUR (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 of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request 
of the gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring attention to a vital 
national issue, our energy security. America's greatest strategic 
vulnerability remains our dangerous dependence on foreign fuels.

                              {time}  2330

  Imagine, we import over one-half of what it takes to fuel this 
Nation.
  The President's energy plan presented earlier this year gave precious 
little attention to the viability of renewable biofuels as an answer to 
our predicament, and it did not offer a single charge directly to our 
U.S. Department of Agriculture to lead us out of the woods. At a 
minimum, I would say that is gross negligence.
  American agriculture has the enormous capability to break our 
dependence on imported petroleum, but the bill before us today, with 
all due respect to the hardworking committee, does not lead us toward 
the maximization of biofuels and higher value-added production for our 
farmers.
  Forty years ago in this Chamber, President Kennedy made his famous 
speech challenging our Nation to think broadly. He set the goal of 
putting a man on the moon by the end of that decade. I will just read 
some of his words where he said, ``It is time for the Nation to take 
longer strides, time for great new American enterprise to clearly play 
a leading role in space achievement which, in many ways,'' he said, 
``holds the key to our future on Earth.'' But he admitted we as a 
Nation had never made the national decisions or marshaled the national 
resources required of such leadership. Indeed, on the energy front, we 
are in the same predicament.
  It is time for us to take longer strides and create a new American 
enterprise. We have the resources and talent on every farm and field in 
this country; we have talent at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We 
have our land grant universities, but we do not have a specified goal. 
We do not have a time schedule. Our resources are spread around with 
questionable coordination and, truly, no urgency.
  Consider that in 1985 we imported 31 percent of our fuel imports. 
Today, that is nearly double, nearly 58.5 percent. Our population is 
growing, our energy demands are growing, our energy dependency on 
foreign sources is growing.
  So what is our answer? What is our plan? How long can we wait? Do not 
the events of recent weeks remind us of how vulnerable our dependency 
has made us? In fact, the current recession was directly due initially 
to the rising cost of petroleum, imported petroleum that has rippled 
through this marketplace. Have we not heard from farmer after farmer 
that they would rather get their income from the marketplace rather 
than from government payments? Are we afraid of the challenge? Are we 
unable to commit to a goal?
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us today seeks to do two primary 
things. It seeks to establish a farmer-held biofuels feedstock energy 
reserve held by our farmers. By devoting a portion of our abundance to 
biofuels production, which is renewable and belongs to us, we provide 
the assurances that a fledgling industry needs to expand. Second, it 
gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to make or guarantee 
loans for the development, production, distribution, and storage of 
biofuels.
  If all corn, just taking corn, currently being planted was used for 
ethanol, based on current technology, we would get one-fifth of our 
vehicle fuel from ethanol, which is all we import. Obviously, as 
research improves and other cellulose and oil sources from our fields 
are added, we will get much more, just as we went from Mercury to 
Gemini to Apollo. So the farmer gets paid by the marketplace instead of 
government payments.
  We have also seen the positive impact of biofuels programs on the 
farm balance sheet. Last month, I was able to travel to Minnesota, the 
leading State in our country for ethanol and

[[Page H6371]]

biofuels production, to see for myself what a difference the States' 
program, working hand-in-hand with the private sector and farmers in 
that State, has made over the last decade. It is truly impressive. 
Everyone in Minnesota is using ethanol, and farmers have found that 
they can get a dollar more per bushel because of the increased demand.
  Every one of our auto manufacturers produces vehicles that can use 
these fuels. It is a matter of national security, and I ask for support 
of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that under the 
rules, this amendment is not in order and, therefore, I am forced to 
withdraw the amendment, but in no way do I wish to diminish the 
importance of the concept that I have been discussing here this 
evening. I would really beg for the Chair's consideration as time goes 
on and for the ranking member's consideration of this important issue 
of renewable biofuels as a critical part of what our Department of 
Agriculture should be involved in.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, I would 
just say to her, as we said to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) 
yesterday on a similar amendment, this is an idea whose time has not 
yet quite come, but I do not have any doubt that we will be considering 
this if not in an agriculture bill, in a national energy policy bill. I 
appreciate the gentlewoman withdrawing it today, because it would have 
had the same problems of funding that the conservation bill, et cetera, 
had, so I appreciate her cooperation and I assure her that we will 
continue to work with her as we have throughout the year in continuing 
to build on this concept.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman as well that the 
whole idea of renewable fuels in a wide variety is obviously something 
that is of great benefit to this country. I think it has also given the 
emphasis that we are placing today on energy and new energy sources 
that further development in this is critical. As the gentleman from 
Texas stated, obviously, one of the big concerns is the readjustment of 
monies which have gone in in a very balanced way.
  The concept the gentlewoman has I think is something that certainly 
needs further development, and I would agree that I think a major 
opportunity for this lies and exists as overall energy policies and 
energy programs are being looked at. Those of us who work on the 
Committee on Agriculture that come from a parochial interest also have 
this from a standpoint that we think there are some wonderful 
opportunities here for farmers as well. So we will be happy to work 
with the gentlewoman.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the 
chairman very much and the ranking member for participating in this 
discussion.


                Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. 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. 38 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       In subsection (g)(2) in the quoted matter in section 747 of 
     the bill (page 302, line 16), strike ``one percent'' and 
     insert ``10 percent''.


        Modification to Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
line that says ``insert 10 percent,'' instead of 10, insert ``3 
percent.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Strike 10 percent and insert 3 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment, as modified.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will increase the amount 
of environmental risk assessment research.
  USDA has funded significant biotechnology research aimed at creating 
new agricultural products, while almost no research is conducted on the 
risks of these products. USDA spends over $100 million a year on 
biotech commercialization research.
  The impacts of biotechnology must be understood so federal regulators 
can minimize environmental impacts.
  H.R. 2646 begins to address this concern by reauthorizing a 
biotechnology risk assessment program.
  However, H.R. 2646 fails to authorize enough funding, which is set at 
only 1% of the total USDA biotech research budget.
  The current USDA biotech risk assessment program gives $1.8 million 
per year for research grants. However, many excellent projects remain 
unfunded.
  This amendment expands biotechnology risk assessment research funds 
from 1% to 3% of the total USDA biotech research budget.
  Endorsed by: National Farmers Union, National Farmers Organization, 
National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the 
gentleman from Ohio and I have talked and we both agree that we need to 
review this kind of biotech research in such a way that it is going to 
assure food safety, and that we need to have the kind of new research 
that is going to make sure that not only can we convince the American 
people, but we are in a better position to convince Europe and Japan 
and the rest of the world.
  In my three hearings that I have held on biotech, we do not want to 
diminish our review of the normal cross-breeding of the products that 
we get, but I think it is important that we move ahead with greater 
assurance. So I support the amendment at 3 percent, and USDA can 
accommodate some place between 2.5 and 3 percent.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentleman and thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Combest), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), for their cooperation.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just want to say to the gentleman we appreciate his cooperation in 
trying to work through this, finding it as something that would be 
acceptable and that we could try to work with. We have no objections 
from the committee on this side and we will be happy to accept the 
amendment. I yield back.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I understand that the chairman is willing to accept this amendment, 
and that being the case, obviously I go along with my chairman. But as 
the chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over 
biotechnology, I really want to say to the gentleman that we have a 
program that has been in place since 1990. The program is working very, 
very well. I do not see any objections particularly to whether it is 1 
percent or whether it is anything more or less than that.
  The problem I have with this amendment is that all of these grants 
are very competitive. Our research stations, our research universities 
need absolutely all the money that they can get to be able to do the 
research on biotechnology. If we do not do the research on it, the risk 
assessment is meaningless.
  We need the money allocated to research. The risk assessment is a 
much broader issue. It involves social issues as well as particular 
research issues. I really have a problem with taking money away from 
research itself and trying to allocate it to something else that 
involves a political and a social issue. While we are willing to look 
at this issue in conference and I understand the gentleman's concern 
about this, because I have a concern too.
  I do not think there is any question but that biotechnology is the 
future of agriculture. Our folks who are using GMO products today are 
producing better yields and higher quality products than we have ever 
seen in the history of agriculture. We need for folks

[[Page H6372]]

around the world to accept those products, and we are going to continue 
to work to make sure that happens. But the way we do that I think is 
putting more money into research and not so much money into the 
political aspect of it.
  Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, I have 
held a number of hearings on the safety of agricultural biotechnology 
to both human health and the environment. What I heard from the 
scientific community was that the risks of biotech plants are no 
different than the risks of similar plants developed using traditional 
methods, such as cross-breeding. This has been the conclusion of many 
reports on agricultural biotechnology by prestigious national and 
international scientific bodies.
  Moreover, Federal regulations require biotech companies bringing new 
plants to market to perform rigorous field testing to ensure that their 
products do not harm the environment.
  It should also be noted that the U.S. Department of Agriculture gets 
barely enough research proposals to spend the money already available 
to the risk assessment program under current law. By increasing 
mandated funding to 10 percent, this amendment would cut into funding 
needed for research into new biotech plants that have tremendous 
potential benefits. Mandated funding at three percent might be 
accommodated.
  This Agricultural bill includes funding for research I promoted to 
sequence the genomes of plant pathogens, research that could lead to 
better, more environmentally-friendly ways to attack crop pests that 
cost farmers and taxpayers hundreds of million of dollars each year. 
Other research will produce plants that can grow in salty soil, clean 
up hazardous wastes, produce renewable fuels, and provide enhanced 
nutrition.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the 
gentleman from Georgia. I want to assure the gentleman that 97 percent 
of the research that you support is protected, that this amendment 
seeks to utilize percent for environmental risk assessment. I want to, 
since my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and I have debated a lot 
of the issues that the gentleman refers to, from our respective 
positions, I think there is a point here where we can have some 
bipartisan agreement. I want to let the gentleman from Georgia know 
that I am sympathetic to his concerns, and I would appreciate his 
consideration of this position.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 34 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. 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. 34 offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       Page ____, line ____, insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. FAMILY FARMER COOPERATIVE MARKETING.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Producer.--Subsection (b) of section 3 of the 
     Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 (7 U.S.C. 2302) is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``poultryman,'' after ``dairyman,''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The term includes 
     a person furnishing labor, production management, facilities, 
     or other services for the production of an agricultural 
     product.''.
       (2) Association of producers.--Subsection (c) of such 
     section is amended by inserting ``that engages in the 
     marketing of such agricultural products or of agricultural 
     services described in the second sentence of subsection (b), 
     including associations'' before ``engaged in''.
       (3) Additional definitions.--Such section is further 
     amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the 
     following new subsections:
       ``(e) The term `accredited association' means an 
     association of producers accredited by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture in accordance with section 6.
       ``(f) The term `designated handler' means a handler that is 
     designated pursuant to section 6.
       ``(g) The terms `bargain' and `bargaining' mean the 
     performance of the mutual obligation of a handler and an 
     accredited association to meet at reasonable times and for 
     reasonable periods of time for the purpose of negotiating in 
     good faith with respect to the price, terms of sale, 
     compensation for products produced or services rendered under 
     contract, or other provisions relating to the products 
     marketed, or the services rendered, by the members of the 
     accredited association or by the accredited association as 
     agent for the members.''.
       (b) Prohibited Practices.--Section 4 of the Agricultural 
     Fair Practices Act of 1967 (7 U.S.C. 2303) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding the subsections, by striking 
     ``the following practices;'' and inserting ``any of the 
     following practices:''
       (2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``interfere with, 
     restrain, or'' before ``coerce'';
       (3) by striking ``or'' at the end of subsections (a), (b), 
     (c), (d), and (e) and inserting a period; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(g) To refuse to bargain in good faith with an accredited 
     association, if the handler is designated pursuant to section 
     6.
       ``(h) To dominate or interfere with the formation or 
     administration of any association of producers or to 
     contribute financial or other support to an association of 
     producers.''.
       (c) Bargaining in Good Faith.--Section 5 of the 
     Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 (7 U.S.C. 2304) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 5. BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH.

       ``(a) Clarification of Obligation.--The obligation of a 
     designated handler to bargain in good faith shall apply with 
     respect to an accredited association and the products or 
     services for which the accredited association is accredited 
     to bargain. The good-faith bargaining required between a 
     handler and an accredited association does not require either 
     party to agree to a proposal or to make a concession.
       ``(b) Extension of Same Terms to Accredited Association.--
     If a designated handler purchases a product or service from 
     producers under terms more favorable to such producers than 
     the terms negotiated with an accredited association for the 
     same type of product or services, the handler shall offer the 
     same terms to the accredited association. Failure to extend 
     the same terms to the accredited association shall be 
     considered to be a violation of section 4(g). In comparing 
     terms, the Secretary of Agriculture shall take into 
     consideration (in addition to the stipulated purchase price) 
     any bonuses, premiums, hauling or loading allowances, 
     reimbursement of expenses, or payment for special services of 
     any character which may be paid by the handler, and any sums 
     paid or agreed to be paid by the handler for any other 
     designated purpose than payment of the purchase price.
       ``(c) Mediation and Arbitration.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture may provide mediation services with respect to 
     bargaining between an accredited association and a designated 
     handler at the request of either the accredited association 
     or the handler. If an impasse in bargaining has occurred (as 
     determined by the Secretary), the Secretary shall provide 
     assistance in proposing and implementing arbitration 
     agreements between the accredited association and the 
     handler. The Secretary may establish a procedure for 
     compulsory and binding arbitration if the Secretary finds 
     that an impasse in bargaining exists and such impasse will 
     result in a serious interruption in the flow of an 
     agricultural product to consumers or will cause substantial 
     economic hardship to producers or handlers involved in the 
     bargaining.''.
       (d) Accreditation of Associations and Designation of 
     Handlers.--The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 6 and 7 (7 U.S.C. 2305, 2306) 
     as sections 9 and 11, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 5 (7 U.S.C. 2304) the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 6. ACCREDITATION OF ASSOCIATIONS AND DESIGNATION OF 
                   HANDLERS.

       ``Not later than ____ after the date of the enactment of 
     this section, the Secretary shall establish procedures--
       ``(1) to accredit associations seeking to bargain on behalf 
     of producers on an agricultural product or service; and
       ``(2) for designation of handlers with whom producer 
     associations seek to bargain.''.
       (e) Investigative Powers of Secretary.--The Agricultural 
     Fair Practices Act of 1967 (7 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) is amended 
     by inserting after section 6 (as added by subsection (d)(2)) 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 7. INVESTIGATIVE POWERS OF SECRETARY.

       ``(a) Investigative Powers.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall have the following powers to carry out the objectives 
     of this Act, including the conduct of any investigations or 
     hearings:
       ``(1) The Secretary may require any person to establish and 
     maintain such records, make such reports, and provide such 
     other information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(2) The Secretary and any officer or employee of the 
     Department of Agriculture, upon presentation of credentials 
     and a warrant or such other order of a court as may be 
     required by the Constitution--
       ``(A) shall have a right of entry to, upon, or through any 
     premises in which records required to be maintained under 
     paragraph (1) are located, and
       ``(B) may at reasonable times have access to and copy any 
     records, which any person is required to maintain or which 
     relate to any matter under investigation or in question.
       ``(b) Treatment of Records.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any 
     records, reports, or information obtained under this section 
     shall be available to the public.
       ``(2) Exception.--Upon a showing satisfactory to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture that records, reports, or 
     information acquired under this section, if made public, 
     would divulge confidential business information, the 
     Secretary shall consider such record, report, or information 
     or particular portion thereof

[[Page H6373]]

     confidential in accordance with section 1905 of title 18, 
     United States Code, except that the Secretary may disclose 
     such record, report, or information to other officers, 
     employees, or authorized representatives of the United States 
     concerned with carrying out this Act or when relevant in any 
     proceeding under this Act.
       ``(c) Powers Related to Hearings.--
       ``(1) Attendance of witnesses.--In making inspections and 
     investigations under this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     may require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 
     production of evidence under oath.
       ``(2) Subpoena power.--The Secretary, upon application of 
     any party to a hearing held under section 9, shall forthwith 
     issue to such party subpoenas requiring the attendance and 
     testimony of witnesses or the production of evidence 
     requested in such application. Within five days after the 
     service of a subpoena on any person requiring the production 
     of any evidence in the possession of the person or under the 
     control of the person, the person may petition the Secretary 
     to revoke such subpoena. The Secretary shall revoke such 
     subpoena if in the opinion of the Secretary the evidence 
     whose production is required does not relate to any matter in 
     question, or if such subpoena does not describe with 
     sufficient particularity the evidence whose production is 
     required.
       ``(3) Oaths and other matters.--The Secretary, or any 
     officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture 
     designated for such purpose, shall have power to administer 
     oaths, sign and issue subpoenas, examine witnesses, and 
     receive evidence. Witnesses shall be paid the same fees and 
     mileage allowance as are paid witnesses in the courts of the 
     United States.
       ``(d) Failure To Comply.--In the case of any failure or 
     refusal of any person to obey a subpoena or order of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture under this section, any district 
     court of the United States, within the jurisdiction of which 
     such person is found or resides or transacts business, upon 
     the application by the Secretary shall have jurisdiction to 
     issue to such person an order requiring such person to appear 
     to produce evidence if, as, and when so ordered to give 
     testimony relating to the matter under investigation or in 
     question. Any failure to obey such order of the court may be 
     punished by the court as a contempt of court.''.
       (f) Administrative Proceedings To Prevent Prohibited 
     Practices.--The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 (7 
     U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 7 
     (as added by subsection (e)) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS TO PREVENT PROHIBITED 
                   PRACTICES.

       ``(a) Petition.--Any person complaining of any violation of 
     section 4 or other provision of this Act may apply to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture by petition, which shall briefly 
     state the facts serving as the basis for the complaint. If, 
     in the opinion of the Secretary, the facts contained in the 
     petition warrant further action, the Secretary shall forward 
     a copy of the petition to the accredited association or 
     handler named in the petition, who shall be called upon to 
     satisfy the complaint, or to answer it in writing, within a 
     reasonable time to be prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Investigation and Complaint.--If there appears to be, 
     in the opinion of the Secretary, reasonable grounds for 
     investigating a complaint made under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall investigate such complaint or 
     notification. In the opinion of the Secretary, if the 
     investigation substantiates the existence of a violation of 
     section 4 or other provision of this Act, the Secretary may 
     cause a complaint to be issued. The Secretary shall have the 
     complaint served by registered mail or certified mail or 
     otherwise on the person concerned and afford such person an 
     opportunity for a hearing thereon before a duly authorized 
     examiner of the Secretary in any place in which the subject 
     of the complaint is engaged in business.
       ``(c) Hearing.--The person complained of shall have the 
     right to file an answer to the original and any amended 
     complaint and to appear in person or otherwise and give 
     testimony. The person who filed the charge shall also have 
     the right to appear in person or otherwise and give 
     testimony. Any such proceeding shall, as far as practicable, 
     be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence and the 
     rules of civil procedure applicable in the district courts of 
     the United States.
       ``(d) Orders.--If, upon a preponderance of the evidence, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture is of the opinion that the 
     person subject to the complaint has violated section 4 or 
     other provision of this Act, the Secretary shall issue an 
     order containing the Secretary's findings of fact and 
     requiring the person to cease and desist from such violation. 
     The Secretary may order such further affirmative action, 
     including an award of damages to compensate the person filing 
     the petition for the damages sustained, as will effectuate 
     the policies of this Act and make the person filing the 
     petition whole.
       ``(e) Complaints Instituted by Secretary.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture may at any time institute an investigation under 
     subsection (b) if there appears to be, in the opinion of the 
     Secretary, reasonable grounds for the investigation and the 
     matter to be investigated is such that a petition is 
     authorized to be made to the Secretary. The Secretary shall 
     have the same power and authority to proceed with any 
     investigation instituted under this subsection as though a 
     petition had been filed under subsection (a), including the 
     power to make and enforce any order.
       ``(f) Judicial Review.--
       ``(1) Obtaining review.--Any person aggrieved by a final 
     order of the Secretary of Agriculture issued under subsection 
     (d) may obtain review of such order in the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by submitting 
     to such court within 30 days from the date of such order a 
     written petition praying that such order be modified or set 
     aside.
       ``(2) Treatment of findings.--The findings of the Secretary 
     with respect to questions of fact, if supported by 
     substantial evidence on the record, shall be conclusive.
       ``(3) Effect of failure to seek timely review.--If no 
     petition for review, as provided in paragraph (1), is filed 
     within 30 days after service of the Secretary's order, the 
     order shall not be subject to review in any civil or criminal 
     proceeding for enforcement, and the findings of fact and 
     order of the Secretary shall be conclusive in connection with 
     any petition for enforcement which is filed by the Secretary 
     after the expiration of such period. In any such case, the 
     clerk of the court, unless otherwise ordered by the court, 
     shall forthwith enter a decree enforcing the order and shall 
     transmit a copy of such decree to the Secretary and the 
     person named in the complaint.
       ``(4) Effect on orders of the secretary.--The commencement 
     of proceedings under this section shall not operate as a stay 
     of an order of the Secretary under subsection (d), unless 
     specifically ordered by the court.''.
       (g) Preemption.--The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 
     1967 (7 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 9 (as redesignated by subsection (d)(1)) the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 10. PREEMPTION.

       ``This Act shall not invalidate the provisions of any 
     existing or future State law dealing with the same subjects 
     as this Act, except that such State law may not permit any 
     action that is prohibited by this Act. This Act shall not 
     deprive the proper State courts of jurisdiction under State 
     laws dealing with the same subjects as this Act.''.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is called the Family Farmer 
Cooperative Marketing Act of 2001.
  For too long now, farmers in our country have been losing power in 
the marketplace, many times not even knowing it. Tens of thousands of 
family farmers produce commodities and provide services under contract 
arrangements with processing firms or handlers. Commodities currently 
produced under contract include fruits and vegetables, turkeys, 
chickens, hogs, popcorn, milk, and beef; and the list is likely to 
continue to increase. We need a fair balance of market power between 
the processors and the producers. That is why some States have already 
taken their own action and the Agricultural Marketing Service of our 
Department of Agriculture considers contracting and agriculture one of 
the most important issues of our day.
  Our amendment would strengthen the Agriculture Fair Practices Act of 
1967 in the following way: it would require the U.S. Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish a system of accreditation for voluntary, 
cooperative associations of agricultural producers. It would provide 
for good faith bargaining between processors or handlers and 
cooperative associations of agricultural producers. It would allow for 
mediation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to resolve impasses in 
bargaining, and it would provide investigative and enforcement 
authority for the Secretary of Agriculture.
  This amendment is very similar to H.R. 230 which I introduced earlier 
this year. The campaign for contract agriculture reform has said this 
bill enhances the power of producers and their cooperatives to 
stabilize farm income.

                              {time}  2345

  The bill receives specific support from the National Farmers 
Organization and the National Pork Producers Council. The American Farm 
Bureau Federation also passed policy resolutions on the importance of 
contracting in agriculture. I also had submitted for the Record another 
amendment dealing with the need to provide the Department of 
Agriculture with the same authority over the poultry industry in this 
Nation that it already has over the beef and pork industries.
  There is great concentration in all of these sectors. Former Grain 
Inspection and Packers and Stockyard Administrator James Baker 
testified before our Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related

[[Page H6374]]

 Agencies, that this equivalent authority is most definitely needed to 
make sure our poultry producers are afforded the same safeguards as are 
available for beef and pork.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
would engage, I understand that the committee may be willing to hold 
hearings on the concerns that many of us have about the needs for 
producers to have their rights to fairly and openly negotiate contracts 
with processors. If the gentleman is willing to commit that the 
Committee on Agriculture will hold a hearing on this issue and GIPSA's 
authority on poultry in the days to come, then I am prepared to 
withdraw my amendment with that assurance.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, let me say 
that the gentlewoman is correct. I am willing, based on the assurances 
of my chairman to assure my colleague that the committee will hold a 
hearing on these topics as our schedule permits.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his assurance, 
and also the chairman for his interest in this issue.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I want to further emphasize what the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) said. We have some exchange of 
letters in this regard and we appreciate the gentlewoman's cooperation 
and we look forward to working with her on this matter.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment in anticipation of those hearings.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments?
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. The 
Agriculture Committee has met the challenge of drafting a comprehensive 
farm bill that balances many competing priorities. For the first time, 
the Committee was confronted with the needs of a sector not 
historically represented in past farm bills: specialty crops, the 
mainstay of California agriculture.
  Although California produces over 200 different crops, many of these 
crops such as fruits and vegetables have not been highlighted in 
previous farm bills because these industries were relatively healthy. 
Unfortunately, specialty crops are hurting more now than ever because 
of cheap imports, labor shortages, high input cost such as pesticides, 
water, electricity, gasoline and bearing the burden of state and 
federal regulations and trade agreements that have not always panned 
out for specialty crops.
  H.R. 2646 benefits the fruit and vegetable industries while also 
positively impacting conservation, trade, nutrition assistance, rural 
development, and research. Most importantly, it maintains a very 
important prohibition of planting fruits and vegetables on contract 
acres. This prohibition is key to ensuring the future economic 
stability within the specialty crop sector.
  Increasing Market Access Program funds by $110 million is also a 
major achievement of this bill, since fruits and vegetables benefit the 
most from this program. Additionally, USDA Section 32 funds are boosted 
by $200 million. This increase enables USDA to purchase additional 
wholesome and nutritional products, such as peaches, tomatoes, 
apricots, pears and a variety of other specialty crop commodities for 
school lunch programs and other federal feeding programs. A significant 
increase in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program funding 
includes targeted spending for water conservation assistance. The 
Technical Assistance Specialty Crop Fund in created to help remove or 
assist with sanitary/phytosanitary trade barriers and increase exports 
of U.S. specialty crops within the global marketplace. Streamlining 
APHIS' procedures enables USDA to respond quickly and more effectively 
to plant and animal and pest and disease emergencies. These are only a 
few of the many provisions that address specialty crop concerns.
  The growing and unique needs of fruit and vegetable industries are 
well represented in this legislation which is intended to meet the 
needs of agriculture for the next 10 years. As the legislative process 
continues, I look forward to continuing my work with my colleagues to 
develop new ways to assist our farmers who, after all, work so hard to 
maintain the safest and most reliable food supply in the world. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farm Security Act. 
This legislation is the product of over two years of preparation by the 
House Agriculture Committee in consultation with agriculture and 
environmental groups, and most importantly, American Farmers.
  I had an opportunity to testify at one of the many field hearings the 
Committee held. During my testimony, I told the Committee that the 
government's approach to agriculture should focus on the farmer. I 
spoke of the importance of maintaining a market approach, encouraging 
productivity, reducing regulatory costs, and managing risk. I also 
discussed the importance of emphasizing cooperation and incentives 
instead of punitive measures in dealing with conservation. And I 
addressed the need to expand markets through fair trade and the 
development of new uses through research and development initiatives.
  But it was the input of farmers that I believe was of most value to 
the Committee in formulating the farm bill. I believe the Agriculture 
Committee did a good job of incorporating the input of farmers into the 
bill. The Committee worked to preserve the market-base philosophy of 
Freedom to Farm, while strengthening the safety net for farmers by 
replacing the unpredictable ad hoc system of emergency payments with a 
system of counter cyclical payments that farmers can rely upon.
  The bill also provides a balanced approach between boosting commodity 
programs and supporting the important goal of conservation. With an 
increase of 80 percent over baseline spending for conservation 
programs, this truly is the most environmentally sensitive farm bill 
ever produced.
  Mr. Chairman, the horrible terrorist attacks of September 11th have 
focused the nation's attention on the need to shore up our national 
security. While doing so, it is important to remember that America's 
food supply is a vital national security issue. By passing this bill, 
this Congress shows that we realize this fact, and we demonstrate that 
we truly speak with one voice when it comes to acting in the best 
interests of the American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, since the New Deal, the federal government 
has fostered the equitable development of rural areas with farm credit 
and other programs that are the foundation of the small farm sector 
that is struggling to hold on today. Direct farm operating and 
ownership loans are an integral part of the historic and ongoing 
mission of the USDA and much needed resource for all producers, not 
just minority, socially disadvantaged, and beginning farmers. The 
viability of America's small farms rests heavily on these loans, and 
the ability of the federal government to assist them in times of 
crisis.
  Our agreement with the majority preserves this traditional role of 
the USDA as the lender of last resort, keeping open entry to 
agriculture for a new generation of farmers by restoring the direct 
lending role that would otherwise be ended in 5 years, while 
maintaining our support of current farmers and the tough economic 
situation they are continually faced with.
  We have also agreed with the majority to address our concerns with 
loan participation data collection and our concerns with the 
transparency and accountability in Farm Service Agency County Committee 
elections.
  Target Participation Rates for USDA loans would help to determine the 
rates of participation for women and minority farmers in relation to 
participation of other farmers in the same county. This information 
would then be made available to the public via the USDA web site.
  These Target Participation Rates, which the majority has so 
generously agreed to hold a Full Agriculture Committee hearing on, are 
needed as minority farmers have shown that they have repeatedly been 
discriminated against by the USDA and by Farm Service Agency County 
Committee members. The Congressional Research Service reports ``the 
largest USDA loans (top 1 percent) went to corporations (65 percent) 
and white male farmers (25 percent) loans to black males averaged 
$4,000 (or 25 percent) less than those loans given to white males; 97 
percent of disaster payments went to white farmers; less than 1 percent 
went to black farmers.''
  The majority has also agreed that in our Full Agriculture Committee 
hearing we will discuss the election procedures for Farm Service Agency 
County Committees. These committees have been the source for much of 
the discrimination that minority farmers have suffered. These committee 
elections are not by secret ballot, ballots are opened and tabulated as 
they come in. The lack of a secret ballot has affected minority 
representation on these committees, which in turn has affected how 
minority farmers have received loans. To ensure that these County 
Committees operate equitably everywhere, we need the majority to 
understand the benefit of fair elections, of opening and tabulating the 
results of these elections in a public forum, and that the information 
on election participation data be made available to the farmers and the 
public. Hopefully in our hearing we will be able to convince

[[Page H6375]]

them of the pressing need for change in these areas. I want to commend 
the majority for our bi-partisan approach to this issue and want to 
thank the chairman for the time.
  I also want to thank the over 70 organizations that were pushing for 
passage of this Farm bill, especially our friends at the Rural 
Coalition and the National Farmers Union, and want to encourage them to 
keep up their hard work.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to the amendment 
altering the provisions of the Agriculture Committee's bill.
  Make no mistake about it. The purpose of this amendment to kill the 
sugar program, similar to the unsuccessful attempts in the past.
  The amendment will keep the current program, which has devastated 
domestic sugar. Today, there are only two commercial sugar plantations 
left in Hawaii, the result of the 1996 Act which has crippled the 
industry and left thousands of Americans unemployed, many of them in 
Hawaii. What this nation needs now is more American jobs, not fewer.
  In addition it would cut the existing supports by $.03 a pound. A 
rough calculation indicates such a move would transfer $500.0 million 
from the domestic sugar producers to the food processors.
  While sugar prices have plummeted, food prices have risen. The 
wholesale price of sugar has dropped 29 percent since the 1996 law 
while sweetened product prices have risen 4 percent-14 percent. It is 
not difficult to determine that consumers will not see one dime of that 
$500.0 million. It will go straight into the pockets of the food 
manufacturers and processors who have soaked up all the additional 
revenue resulting from staggeringly low sugar prices since the 1996 
Act.
  Not only will the food processors unfairly benefit, but more foreign-
produced sugar will pour into the country. My colleagues, in numerous 
cases, that imported sugar will certainly be produced by child labor 
and with no environmental protections.
  How on earth are we helping either our own country or the rest of the 
world by adopting this amendment?
  We've heard reports of candy manufacturers moving to Mexico. That is 
their prerogative, as much as I disagree with their abandoning America. 
The distortion that has been perpetuated, however, is that it is 
because of domestic sugar prices. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. Domestic sugar prices in Mexico have been consistently higher in 
Mexico than in the U.S. The reason they and other manufacturers have 
moved to Mexico is that labor costs are far lower and environmental 
protections are unenforced and ignored.
  The Mexican government, and other foreign producers, then dump 
production in excess of their domestic consumption, regardless of their 
domestic price, on the world market for whatever price they can get. 
That is called the ``world price'' of sugar. In reality, it is the dump 
price, and that is the price at which the supporters of the amendment 
want to purchase sugar.
  My colleagues, this amendment is strictly about money. It is about 
whether money will be paid to American workers for an American product 
produced with environmental protections and labor standards or whether 
it goes directly to the food processors and manufacturers to increase 
their profits regardless of the consequences domestically or 
internationally.
  The House Agriculture Committee has developed a fair, rational and 
effective way to keep this industry producing an American product by 
American workers. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject 
this cynical, ill-conceived attack on American sugar producers and on 
hard-working people.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2646, the Farm 
Security Act of 2001, which authorizes domestic and international 
agricultural programs that support American farmers and promotes 
American agricultural products throughout the world. It is important 
for Congress to support America's family farmers, agricultural 
industries, commodity packers and shippers, and the millions of 
Americans who benefit from the multibillion dollar agriculture industry 
that is the bread basket for the world.
  I wish to commend Chairman Combest for his leadership in crafting the 
Farm Security Act and for ensuring that the many complex facets of 
American agriculture policy are adequately addressed.
  I am especially pleased that the bi-partisan Farm Security Act does 
more than ever to promote international relief efforts through the Food 
for Progress and Food for Peace programs and also makes necessary 
reforms for these vitally important feeding programs. Indeed, these 
programs provide much needed food for the world's poor and starving, 
and are also coupled with sustainable development programs that teach 
the poor how to farm and increase food production.
  Title III of H.R. 2646, also authorizes the McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education Initiative that provides school 
lunches for needy boys and girls that attend school throughout the 
developing world. This is a noble endeavor that I enthusiastically 
endorse.
  I am pleased that many farmers, producers, packers and shippers as 
well not-for-profits, including Catholic Relief Services, support H.R. 
2646.
  I am, however, mindful of the concerns voiced by the President 
regarding the cost of some of the domestic agricultural programs 
authorized by H.R. 2646, and share his view that improvements, 
including the cost of some programs, require additional review. 
Therefore, it is my goal to have the President's concerns addressed at 
a House-Senate Conference that reconciles differences between H.R. 2646 
and the companion measure of this bill that will be considered by the 
Senate. I also believe that a shorter authorization period is in the 
national interest and hope that it will be agreed to during the House-
Senate Conference on the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, while I agree with the President that H.R. 2646 is not 
a perfect bill and will require modifications in order for the 
President to sign a final measure and have it enacted into law, I 
believe that H.R. 2646 serves as a good legislative vehicle to 
negotiate a bi-partisan agreement in Congress that will address many of 
the President's understandable objections. Therefore, with these 
caveats, I intend to support H.R. 2646.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to section 762(c) of 
this legislation.
  Methyl bromide is a powerful ozone depleting substance. Releasing 
methyl bromide into the environmental degrades the Earth's protective 
stratospheric ozone layer, increasing the risks of skin cancer and 
cataracts. As a result, the United States has joined with the 
international community to phase-out methyl bromide by 2005 with only 
limited exceptions.
  Unfortunately, section 762(c) of the ``Farm Security Act'' could be 
interpreted to grant the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to 
allow continued use of methyl bromide even if the use is not in 
conformity with our international commitments under the Montreal 
Protocol. The provisions may well circumvent or override regulations 
issued under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol.
  This language could shift EPA's traditional authority to implement 
the Protocol to the Department of Agriculture, notwithstanding the fact 
that Congress affirmed EPA's primacy on this issue as recently as 1998.
  Additionally, the provision waive compliance with the Administrative 
Procedures Act, the Department of Agriculture's policy on public 
participation, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. These provisions could 
significantly undermine our efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone 
layer as well as the nation's credibility in international meetings.
  These provisions are strongly opposed by the environmental community, 
including the following groups: American Rivers, Friends of the Earth, 
Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society, 
National Environmental Trust, National Parks Conservation Association, 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, 20/20 Vision.
  Mr. Chairman, we should strike these potentially destructive 
provisions. I urge all members to support removing these provisions as 
this bill proceeds through the legislative process.
  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 (Mr. 
Chambliss) 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.

                          ____________________