[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1149-H1154]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILK REGULATORY EQUITY ACT OF 2005
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 2120) to ensure regulatory equity between and among all
dairy farmers and handlers for sales of packaged fluid milk in
federally regulated milk marketing areas and into certain non-federally
regulated milk marketing areas from federally regulated areas, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2120
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Milk Regulatory Equity Act
of 2005''.
[[Page H1150]]
SEC. 2. MILK REGULATORY EQUITY.
(a) Minimum Milk Prices for Handlers; Exemption.--Section
8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(5)),
reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraphs:
``(M) Minimum milk prices for handlers.--
``(i) Application of minimum price requirements.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a milk
handler described in clause (ii) shall be subject to all of
the minimum and uniform price requirements of a Federal milk
marketing order issued pursuant to this section applicable to
the county in which the plant of the handler is located, at
Federal order class prices, if the handler has packaged fluid
milk product route dispositions, or sales of packaged fluid
milk products to other plants, in a marketing area located in
a State that requires handlers to pay minimum prices for raw
milk purchases.
``(ii) Covered milk handlers.--Except as provided in clause
(iv), clause (i) applies to a handler of Class I milk
products (including a producer-handler or producer operating
as a handler) that--
``(I) operates a plant that is located within the
boundaries of a Federal order milk marketing area (as those
boundaries are in effect as of the date of the enactment of
this subparagraph);
``(II) has packaged fluid milk product route dispositions,
or sales of packaged fluid milk products to other plants, in
a milk marketing area located in a State that requires
handlers to pay minimum prices for raw milk purchases; and
``(III) is not otherwise obligated by a Federal milk
marketing order, or a regulated milk pricing plan operated by
a State, to pay minimum class prices for the raw milk that is
used for such dispositions or sales.
``(iii) Obligation to pay minimum class prices.--For
purposes of clause (ii)(III), the Secretary may not consider
a handler of Class I milk products to be obligated by a
Federal milk marketing order to pay minimum class prices for
raw milk unless the handler operates the plant as a fully
regulated fluid milk distributing plant under a Federal milk
marketing order.
``(iv) Certain handlers exempted.--Clause (i) does not
apply to--
``(I) a handler (otherwise described in clause (ii)) that
operates a nonpool plant (as defined in section 1000.8(e) of
title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the
date of the enactment of this subparagraph);
``(II) a producer-handler (otherwise described in clause
(ii)) for any month during which the producer-handler has
route dispositions, and sales to other plants, of packaged
fluid milk products equaling less than 3,000,000 pounds of
milk; or
``(III) a handler (otherwise described in clause (ii)) for
any month during which--
``(aa) less than 25 percent of the total quantity of fluid
milk products physically received at the plant of the handler
(excluding concentrated milk received from another plant by
agreement for other than Class I use) is disposed of as route
disposition or is transferred in the form of packaged fluid
milk products to other plants; or
``(bb) less than 25 percent in aggregate of the route
disposition or transfers are in a marketing area or areas
located in one or more States that require handlers to pay
minimum prices for raw milk purchases.
``(N) Exemption for certain milk handlers.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this section, no handler with
distribution of Class I milk products in the marketing area
described in Order No. 131 shall be exempt during any month
from any minimum price requirement established by the
Secretary under this subsection if the total distribution of
Class I products during the preceding month of any such
handler's own farm production exceeds 3,000,000 pounds.''.
(b) Exclusion of Nevada From Federal Milk Marketing
Orders.--Section 8c(11) of the Agriculture Adjustment Act (7
U.S.C. 608c(11)), reenacted with amendments by the
Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking the last sentence; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) In the case of milk and its products, no county or
other political subdivision of the State of Nevada shall be
within the marketing area definition of any order issued
under this section.''.
(c) Records and Facility Requirements.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section, or the amendments made by
this section, a milk handler (including a producer-handler or
a producer operating as a handler) that is subject to
regulation under this section or an amendment made by this
section shall comply with the requirements of section 1000.27
of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, or a successor
regulation, relating to handler responsibility for records or
facilities.
(d) Effective Date and Implementation.--The amendments made
by this section take effect on the first day of the first
month beginning more than 15 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act. To accomplish the expedited
implementation of these amendments, effective on the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
include in the pool distributing plant provisions of each
Federal milk marketing order issued under subparagraph (B) of
section 8c(5) of the Agriculture Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C.
608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the Agriculture
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, a provision that a handler
described in subparagraph (M) of such section, as added by
subsection (a) of this section, will be fully regulated by
the order in which the handler's distributing plant is
located. These amendments shall not be subject to a
referendum under section 8c(19) of such Act (7 U.S.C.
608c(19)).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardoza) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition
to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XV, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) will control 20 minutes in opposition to the bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ranking
member of the Committee on Agriculture, who I understand is on his way,
and in his absence the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), to have
control of time for 10 minutes, and that they be permitted to yield
blocks of that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2120. My original interest in
this legislation was to address a loophole created in the interface of
the Federal Milk Market Order System with individual State milk
marketing arrangements.
Under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of
1993, the Secretary of Agriculture protects dairy producers from
predatory pricing by setting a minimum price that must be paid by
processors who distribute fluid milk within a Federal Milk Market Order
Area.
While a majority of the country is covered by one of 10 Federal
orders, some States, California in particular, have enacted legislation
which authorizes State agencies to regulate minimum milk price for
intrastate sales.
Herein lies the dilemma. Milk processed and distributed in the
neighboring State of Arizona, which operates under a Federal order, is
subject to the Federal minimum pricing regulations. However, milk
processed in Arizona and then sold in California is exempt from the
Federal existing regulations.
And since the commercial product originates from outside the State,
it is exempt from California State regulations. Because of this
loophole, milk produced in Arizona and sold in California is not
subject to any minimum pricing regulations. This creates an unfair
advantage for out-of-state fluid milk processors.
This situation was first brought to my attention by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Nunes) and I agreed to help resolve this issue.
The solution simply directs the Secretary to apply the minimum
pricing regulations of the Federal order system to any covered milk
handler if they sell a significant portion of their fluid milk
production in States that have established minimum milk pricing
regulations.
Mr. Speaker, as all of our colleagues can attest, Federal dairy
policy is among the most complicated and politicized of all of our
programs. Indeed, the main reason that it has taken as long as it has
to bring this bill to the full House for consideration is because often
the simplest dairy bills tend to act as magnets and attract all kinds
of unrelated pieces that are in many ways controversial.
This legislation is no exception. While the original intent was to
remedy a situation that has caused great concern to the California
dairy industry, two additional provisions have been added to this
legislation to address concerns elsewhere.
Admittedly, I was reluctant to include these provisions; but after
meeting with members of the dairy industry and hearing their near
universal support, I decided to move forward with the legislation as
drafted.
The two provisions that were added simply exempt Clark County, Nevada
from the existing Arizona-Las Vegas
[[Page H1151]]
Milk Market Order and create a 3 million pound-per-month cap on the
exemption for producers who process and distribute their own milk
within the Arizona-Las Vegas Order.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some Members may have concerns about one
or more of these provisions. As I indicated, I too had some
reservations. But as I stated, there is near unanimous support within
the dairy community, both the producers and the processors, for these
changes. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to rise and challenge the chairman of
the authorizing committee regarding a dairy issue.
He and I have talked about this on many occasions; and frankly, much
of that which he suggests as a potential solution to the California-
Nevada-Arizona problem I am in total agreement with.
My difficulty is that I have reviewed with great care all of those
suspensions that are on the floor today. This is the controversial
suspension. And indeed, rather than talking policy, I will talk policy
all that my colleagues would like today, I would prefer to discuss the
violation of procedure that is involved here.
Under our rules, suspensions are to be addressing issues that are not
controversial, that Members on both sides of the aisle are able to
largely agree upon. There are minor exceptions to this. But in this
case, we are talking about a violent exception.
{time} 1600
It is clearly understood by people operating with this bill on both
sides of the aisle that I have had very strong opposition and others
have had opposition to this policy. And yet to have it come to the
floor as a suspension with no notice whatsoever, I mean, I learned last
Friday by accident that this bill was going to be on the floor.
Frankly, I might be on a plane today, otherwise; and it is hardly the
way to treat Members on either side of the aisle dealing with a
fundamental question of procedure. So for that reason initially I have
expressed my very strong opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Just to
respond to the gentleman, I certainly respect the gentleman's concerns.
I too learned about the measure last Thursday or Friday, but this is
very common with the scheduling of suspensions.
As the gentleman is well aware, we have been discussing this issue,
and it has been on the cusp of coming to the floor for a long, long
time. We need to attempt to resolve these differences, and I think the
consensus, on the part of many, is that we need to proceed with this
debate today. I think that is the best way to get to the heart of what
is going on here.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire). Without
objection, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) will control the
time previously allocated to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardoza).
There was no objection.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the bill before us, and I
would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and the other members of the
committee for their hard work and cooperation. I would also like to
acknowledge the gentlemen from California, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Baca, Mr.
Cardoza and Mr. Costa, who have worked diligently to bring this
important issue to the attention of the House.
Though this bill is not perfect, Mr. Speaker, it will begin to solve
an imbalance in our regulatory structure. However, it ignores the fact
that the real solution is for California to join the Federal Dairy
System. Right now, one handler in Yuma, Arizona, is using a loophole in
the current system to sell from a Federal milk market area into
California and is not paying the minimum milk price that either
institution has in place. This practice is disrupting the marketplace
and undermining the goal of fairness that the regulatory system should
encourage.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill offers a piecemeal approach
when dairy policy really needs a more comprehensive adjustment. The
bill will begin to address the problem more immediately, but will leave
more work to be done for a later time.
Mr. Speaker, even as one part of this bill is written to ensure that
the Yuma handler is on the same regulatory playing field as his
competitors, the bill's second provision completely exempts Nevada
processors from regulation. So one provision requires that similar
rules apply to all handlers, while the other gives special status to
handlers in Nevada.
It may be that the exemption for Nevada will allow the Yuma handler
to regain unregulated status that the bill is meant to take away. Keep
in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the goal of this bill is to level the
playing field between producers and handlers, which is what I hope it
will do despite the fact that it is not a particularly comprehensive
solution.
Without feedback from hearings and from the USDA regarding
implementation of this bill, we cannot be sure that it will resolve the
problem that is occurring now with the plant in Yuma, Arizona. Who is
to say that the same issue will not arise elsewhere? Are we going to
legislate milk price regulation every time a new milk processing plant
opens? I hope not.
Finally, I must reiterate that the entire problem addressed by this
bill could be solved if California belonged to the Federal order
system. We need our policy to recognize that no State, even California,
is isolated from the dairy marketplace. Each day raw milk and processed
dairy products cross the California border in both directions. Despite
that fact, California has taken various actions to isolate itself; most
notably, in 2003 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against
California's position that its system was protected from scrutiny under
the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
California has attempted to stop the flow of raw milk from Nevada to
California processors by requiring that the processors pay an extra fee
into the California pool, a contribution that was not shared with
producers supplying that milk.
Mr. Speaker, that California even felt the need to tax incoming milk
in that way is a sign that the system is becoming unsustainable.
Although this bill before us today is needed and is not perfect, I
just have to say that it does little to address the broader problems
that arise from the two systems operating side by side. So I am here
today to support this bill because it will give us a short-term
solution to the problem. And I look forward to working with my
colleagues as we move ahead, my colleagues in the dairy industry, to
develop a more sensible plan for the long term.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I find this discussion rather
interesting today. We have a bill before us which essentially objects
to a producer from Arizona, because he is doing to California what
California has done to the rest of the country with respect to milk
marketing orders for quite some time.
It seems to me that if we are going to be dealing with this issue, we
ought to be dealing with it generically, with all of its ramifications.
I don't think this bill belongs on the suspension calendar. I think if
we are going to take care of somebody's side problem, we ought to take
care of other problems that are associated with the milk marketing
order system as well.
What this process reminds me of is something that happened a number
of years ago when Mr. Gingrich was Speaker and Steve Gunderson, a
Republican from Wisconsin, was chair of the Dairy Subcommittee. Steve
had expected to be able, on the farm bill, to offer an amendment to the
committee product dealing with milk marketing orders. He wasn't allowed
to do that,
[[Page H1152]]
even though he was the chairman of the subcommittee handling the bill,
Instead, what happened is that there was an insider's fix between
then-Speaker Gingrich and then-chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr.
Solomon. They guaranteed that in return for their sweetheart deal,
Gunderson wouldn't even be able to offer his amendment on the floor.
We have seen all too much of that for the past years around here, and
so I have no illusions about what is going to happen to this bill, but
I for one want to object to the fact that it is on the suspension
calendar. I want to object to the fact that if we are going to take
care of this little discrete problem that we are not, in the process,
taking care of the broader issues that confront us on the whole area of
milk marketing order systems.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to respond to the gentleman from
Wisconsin regarding the concern that this legislation is targeting one
or two individual producer handlers to the benefit of the rest of the
dairy industry.
We are here today to discuss how to keep the current Federal milk
market order, something very important to the people of Wisconsin and
other States, operating in a fair and equitable manner. I do not fault
companies for their success. In fact, I applaud them for it.
When one or two companies' success, however, is based on a gap in the
regulatory system, I believe we have an obligation to respond. In this
particular case, millions of pounds of unregulated milk flows in your
State commerce in direct competition with regulated milk. This
certainly has the potential to impact markets.
I support this legislation because I believe that this milk should be
treated the same way by the Federal Government that we treat milk that
is in direct competition with it.
This is not about punishing individuals. It is about ensuring a level
playing field for competition.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of S. 2120,
the Milk Regulatory Equity Act. For those familiar with dairy policy,
there is never an easy fight in dairy policy, and this legislation is
no different; it will be familiar.
Throughout the years, there have been more obstacles thrown in the
path of this worthy legislation than I can count. I am grateful to my
friend and colleague, Devin Nunes, for his tireless leadership and
pursuit of correcting this problem. I also want to thank Senator
Feinstein and the chairman and ranking member of the House Agriculture
Committee for their support in moving this legislation forward.
Our dairy industry is extremely regulated and for good reason. Dairy
products are both highly perishable and critical to the dietary
requirements of Americans. Without a formal process for pricing,
pooling and processing, the entire chain of production from producers
through consumers is at risk. Dairy policy works because all players,
including processors, producers, co-ops, distributors and buyers adhere
to the same rules. Rules and regulations keep the dairy markets stable
and allow orderly distribution of high-quality milk, cheese and butter
products.
This bill will close a dangerous loophole that allows a few large
producer handlers to escape all these carefully crafted Federal and
State regulatory requirements. It would require those operations
physically located in a Federal order, but shipping entirely into a
State order, to comply with the regulations governing dairy policy in
the order where their plant is located.
Do these individuals who are exploiting this loophole want to
maintain it? Absolutely. However, due to the unique characteristics of
a commodity like dairy, it cannot be allowed to continue. The
foundation of this legislation is that all dairy organizations should
be governed by the same rules. One group should not have an unfair
competitive advantage over another.
The Milk Regulatory Equity Act ensures production and price of milk
is fair and equitable. This is an extremely important bill for my home
State of California, but also for the entire country. History has shown
that things that happen first in California then spread east.
This loophole has the opportunity to affect every milk marketing
order across the country. Let us stop it now before that happens. This
is a good bill and one that deserves our support.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will speak just for a moment, for the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardoza) talked about a loophole. The loophole that he
is talking about really is a part of an existing law. But if there is a
loophole, it is handled by a regulation that has been handled by the
Department recently.
That very regulation is currently being challenged in the courts, and
people are attempting to codify that regulation in order to bypass my
constituents' opportunity in the courts. They were due to appear in
court tomorrow to defend their interest, and this bill is on the floor
today, making it not just a very controversial issue, but violating our
very fundamental process.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the House to be very reserved about using
the suspension process in this fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2120, the Milk
Regulatory Equity Act, which would amend an outdated regulatory
exemption within the Federal milk marketing order. I commend Chairman
Goodlatte and the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of
the bill, for their work in moving this legislation forward.
Years ago, the United States Department of Agriculture exempted small
producer handler dairy farmers from regulation because they owned and
milked their own cows and sold their own products directly to local
consumers. Today, some of these unregulated producer handlers collect
U.S. Government subsidies and have grown to be among the largest dairy
processors in the country with significant market shares.
This is an unfair advantage, and this exemption can adversely affect
the prices other farmers receive. Consumers also suffer as unregulated
producer handlers eliminate competition. This bill eliminates the
loophole that allows now large producer handler operations to be
unregulated and requires equal application of the law. It still allows
family producer handlers to be exempted if their product is less than 3
million pounds per month.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2120 and
ask for your support of this bill. I too want to thank Chairman
Goodlatte and Congressman Nunes and Congressman Cardoza for their
efforts on this important piece of legislation that eventually, I
think, will lead to an important part where we need to focus on
comprehensive dairy policy as we look toward the 2007 farm bill.
But I rise to speak very simply about something that is complicated,
that, as most of you know, is dairy policy.
{time} 1615
Your support of this bill does not require the detailed knowledge of
the myriad pacts that govern the dairy industry and demand a historical
analysis of what is going on throughout the country and individual
States.
S. 2120, though, is about fairness. Is it fair today in California
some of the world's most productive dairymen and women are being
undercut by a legal loophole between the Federal and State dairy
programs that permits some dairies to skirt all the rules?
Is it fair that by exporting these programs, some dairies avoid all
regulations, enabling them to sell to retailers at well below well-
regulated dairies?
Is it fair that this bill, which has passed the United States Senate
with
[[Page H1153]]
unanimous consent with overwhelming, obviously bipartisan support, has
had to wait 3 years to be considered by the House?
Is it fair that one of the few dairies in this country that opposes
this legislation claims he is simply using the free market system,
while accepting nearly $1 million a year in Federal dairy support
payments?
No, it is not fair. Your support of S. 2120 will bring fairness back
to dairy farms. If we are going to ultimately craft an even-handed
dairy policy throughout the country, and we have competition abroad, we
need to first take this first step.
I urge you to support S. 2120.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, responding directly to my colleague from California's
point, indeed it has been suggested that we are dealing with dairy
policy in a major way here on the floor. If that is the case, clearly
we should not be handling that very policy by way of a suspension
matter. It is a fundamental violation of that process.
This bill has had a number of years for possible consideration in the
authorizing committee; and, yet, the authorizing committee has never
held a hearing on this subject, the subject of the Senate bill that is
before us today.
I would suggest to us that our authorizers need to, in a fundamental
way, look at national dairy policy and not let California continue to
take such advantage of the country, as my colleague, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), suggested. In this case, we have California
divided against itself, the central valley against my district.
I must tell you, a long time ago, I tried not to have to deal with
dairy policy because of problems in the past, but I can tell you also
you can never quite satisfy dairy people in California because any kind
of competition is a problem.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the chairman of the Dairy
Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee.
(Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate;
and if you want to get into hot water, just start debating dairy
policy. It not only gets very complicated very fast, but it gets very
heated.
This is not a new issue. This has been percolating around this
Capitol now for at least 2\1/2\ years. I was first made aware of it by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) and others on a trip to
California. I have learned more about this issue than I think I really
ever wanted to know; and, frankly, I think most Members of the House do
not really want to know too much about this.
Our colleague from Ohio, I think, said it well. This is really an
example of where the laws were originally designed to protect small
producer-handlers, and here we have a large producer-handler who has
found this, and I do not want to get into a fight here over the term
``loophole,'' but he has found this opportunity and he is exploiting
this opportunity.
Now, we have said repeatedly to our colleagues in California, this
essentially is a California issue, why do you not work it out. I think
there was a good-faith effort on both sides of this argument to try and
do that; but, unfortunately, they failed.
This is a very complicated issue, but I think all of the speakers who
have preceded me have said it well, that we have a responsibility to
have a Federal milk system that is fair to everybody. What we have
right now is one particular producer who is trying to use the best of
both worlds, who is situated right on the border; and, frankly, I think
we have a responsibility to close that loophole.
Let me point out that this is not an issue, while generally milk
issues divide geographically, they divide between the people who
produce the milk, the dairy farmers and the processors, this is one
where virtually everyone in the dairy industry, from all corners of the
United States, whether they are dairy farmers large or small, whether
they are processors large or small, or whether they are in the
marketing side or the manufacturing side, almost universally they
support this legislation.
So with all due respect to our distinguished colleague and chairman
of the Appropriations Committee, I think this is an idea that has
percolated for a very long time. It is time for the House to take
action. I strongly support the bill, and I hope my colleagues will join
me in supporting it as well and pass it here today on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Subcommittee with jurisdiction over
dairy programs and policies, I want to express my support for this
legislation and reiterate the comments made by the Chairman of the
Agriculture Committee.
As he said, the federal milk marketing order system has served the
dairy industry well. But we have this situation where a processor from
outside California can undermine the market there by under pricing the
regulated competition.
Mr. Nunes and a number of others have worked to address this, and the
legislation before us today would direct USDA to apply the minimum
pricing regulations of the federal order system to milk processed in a
federal order area and distributed into states that have a statewide
system.
While we're aware that some Members have concerns with this
legislation, it's important to point out that it has the strong support
from nearly the entire dairy industry, both producers and processors.
Again, as Chairman of the Dairy Subcommittee, I encourage my
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty apparent for those who have been listening
that this is not a simple matter. I mean, dealing with national dairy
policy by way of a suspension bill, with the presumption this is a very
simple, noncontroversial item, at best, distorts the process.
Let me share with my colleagues that there is a regulation in place
that covers the problems that have been raised here on the floor. The
department has recently done that. That regulation is being challenged
in court, and it is supposed to be heard tomorrow. So the opponents are
choosing to bring the bill up today to undermine that opportunity for a
family business to have an opportunity to expand their business.
I would suggest to my colleagues perhaps we should be supporting
small producer-handlers across the country who would wish to expand
their business, and those who have not chosen to follow that line, if
it is so profitable, why do they not follow that line themselves? They,
too, could become producer-handlers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have just one speaker remaining, and I
believe we have the right to close.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have any
additional speakers, and so I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining balance of my time
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Ag
Committee, Bob Goodlatte, and Ranking Member Peterson for this ongoing
3-year debate.
I find it interesting when we come to Washington, you learn that
people like to use politics instead of policy. If you notice, the
opposition to this bill, they did not talk or discuss the policy of
this matter. They talked about the politics of it.
So since they went down that road, I would like to say that this bill
is not controversial. This bill has been debated for 3 years. The
Senate passed it unanimously. The Senate authorizers have said that
this needs to get done. The House authorizing committee, we have the
chairman of the Dairy Subcommittee who recognizes this needs to be
done.
The opposition to this bill, who is a good friend of mine, but this
has unanimous support across California, unanimous. Every dairy farmer
in the State of California has sent letters to their Congressman, and
every dairy industry, not only the dairy farmers, this is
[[Page H1154]]
not just about dairy farmers, this is dairy processors. This is grocery
stores, and it is not only California. It is across the entire country.
This has national implications to let producer-handlers game the
system. This is about gaming the system.
So it is not confusing. It is not controversial, and if you look at
the fact that they talk about a constituent being in California in a
lawsuit that is being brought forth, that is simply not true. The
lawsuit has been brought forth in Texas, and the person claims to be a
constituent of Texas.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NUNES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman involved is a
constituent of mine. I can take you to his farm anytime you like, in
California.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is the court case you cited
is filed in a Texas court, and he claims to be a resident of Texas.
Mr. LEWIS of California. One of his major farms is in my district,
and all the farmers around him in California are supporting his
position.
Mr. NUNES. Well, I thank the chairman for that, but I do have to say
that we have a differing opinion here, and I can provide the chairman
with letters, if he would like, at a later date.
But with that, I want to thank, again, the House leadership and the
ranking member and especially Chairman Goodlatte for bringing this
forward, and I hope that the House will pass Senate bill 2120 as
quickly as possible.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of S.
2120. Although I acknowledge there is merit to the original intent of
this bill, I am unable to ignore the harm it may cause for the small
business dairy industry in light of recent developments. As this
industry is an integral economic contributor to my district, and indeed
Oklahoma as a whole, it would be negligent of me to endorse this bill
and rely on good luck to protect my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, the dairy industry is complex and there are many
legitimate competing interests. With this in mind, I commend my
colleagues in both bodies of Congress who diligently worked to build a
rare consensus while crafting this bill. I have no doubt in my mind
that the original intent of this bill was narrow in scope, focused on
regulating aspects of the milk industry in certain western states. In
addition, I have no doubt that the crafters of this bill believed they
were protecting smaller dairy farmers, processors, and producer-
handlers outside of those states from falling under similar regulations
in the future.
However, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of Agriculture acted before
Congress, issuing a final rule on February 24, 2006, establishing
similar regulations as would be established by S. 2120. I must admit
Mr. Speaker, this begs the question: Why is it necessary for Congress
to now duplicate what has already been legitimately addressed by the
USDA? I fear the only outcome may be to codify this regulation, thereby
inherently suggesting that Congress will endorse similar such
regulations in the future. This is a precedent which I can not support.
I believe in our government's regulatory process Mr. Speaker, and as
such, I believe there is no longer any need for Congress to act upon
this particular issue. Had the USDA not taken this action, I also have
no doubt I would have felt much more comfortable with this bill.
Mr. Speaker, S. 2120, although originally well-intentioned and
carefully crafted to insulate dairy farmers, processors, and producer-
handlers outside of these particular western states from unintended
consequences, has been outdated by the regulatory actions of the USDA.
Should Congress pass S. 2120, it may only serve to set a dangerous
precedent which could severely harm an important part of America's
dairy industry in the future.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2120, The Milk
Regulatory Equity Act of 2005.
Mr. Speaker, this bill comes before us today with the full support of
the leadership of the House Agriculture Committee and the nearly
unanimous support of the entire dairy industry.
As Ranking Member of the Department Operations, Oversight, Dairy,
Nutrition and Forestry Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee,
I can speak to how rare it is for a bill to achieve such wide consensus
and agreement among government officials and industry representatives.
This bill is good legislation that will close an unintended loophole
created by past federal regulations. While most states determine their
milk prices based on their Federal Milk Market Order Area, certain
states have enacted legislation which authorizes state agencies to
determine milk prices for intrastate milk sales. This then allows some
out of state milk processors to be completely exempt from any minimum
price regulations and creates an unfair market advantage. S. 2120 will
fix this problem and place all milk processors on a level playing
field.
Dairy operators in the Inland Empire of California, including Chino
and Ontario--in or near my district--are being hurt by this loophole.
Hard-working farmers all across America are facing the same situation,
and we owe it to them to provide regulatory action that will help all
dairy processors.
I want to commend Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Peterson of
the full Committee for their excellent work on this legislation.
I also want to thank Chairman Gutknecht of our Subcommittee for his
leadership on this matter.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and continue the
federal government's tradition of offering American consumers
consistently priced high quality milk.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2120,
the Milk Regulatory Equity Act.
I think there well may be a need for Congress to consider legislation
dealing with Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMOs). But the subject is
too important to be handled the way this bill has been.
The suspension calendar is supposed to be reserved for bills that the
relevant committees have reviewed and that are not controversial, which
is why debate is limited and no amendments are allowed.
However, there has been no hearing on this bill and it has never been
approved by any Committee--in either the House or Senate--so there has
been no opportunity to consider the testimony of anyone who might be
affected, including at least one Colorado company that has told me of
their objections to the bill as it now stands.
Before we make a change in Federal dairy policy that has been in
place for 70 years I think it is appropriate to hear all sides of the
debate. Because that has not happened, I cannot support the bill.
I urge all Members to join me in voting no today, so that the bill
can receive a more careful evaluation and so that possible revisions
can be considered in the Agriculture Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2120.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________