[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 121 (Thursday, July 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8687-H8699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2419.

                              {time}  1942


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs 
through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Tauscher in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, today we have a bill 
before us that is known as the farm bill, but this bill is much more 
than about farms. It is about the food we eat, the clothes we wear, 
and, increasingly, the fuel that we will use.
  The farm bill assures that we will have a safe, strong food supply 
now and for years to come. It funds nutrition programs and ensures that 
working families have enough to eat. It provides conservation programs 
to protect the environment. It funds rural development programs in 
support of our rural communities nationwide. You can see that this farm 
bill is certainly about more than just farms.
  In addition to these important priorities, this farm bill also 
provides the safety net that allows our Nation's farmers and ranchers 
to continue to provide the food, fiber, and fuel that meet the needs of 
Americans and people around the world.
  America is still the world's breadbasket, and that is something we 
should be proud of. Over the past year, my colleagues and I have 
traveled across the country from New York to Alabama, to my neck of the 
woods in Minnesota, and all the way to California. We heard from folks 
who are out there every day working the land, producing a diverse range 
of agriculture products.
  The farm bill is a product of agreements that we have reached by 
consulting everyone interested in this process. In addition to hearings 
across the country, we have worked with nutrition advocates, 
conservation and environmental organizations, renewable energy groups, 
and representatives from all parts of the fruit and vegetable industry, 
in addition to the farm groups traditionally involved in the farm bill.
  At the end of that process, we now have more than 100 organizations 
representing conservation, nutrition, rural development, renewable 
energy, labor and farm groups that have signed on in support of this 
bill. I think that this unprecedented support is a direct result of our 
efforts to be inclusive in this farm bill process.
  There are very few issues that the National Farmers Union and the 
American Farm Bureau Federation can agree on, but at the end of the 
day, they both support this bill.
  The members of these groups who support our farm bill are the real 
experts on farm policy because it is a reality that they live each day 
of their lives. They are the ones on the land planting the crops, 
managing the livestock and taking the risk inherent in the industry of 
farming. They are the ones who represent the people using the farm 
bill's nutrition programs. They are the ones working to implement good 
conservation practices in the communities across this country. If they 
support our bill, then I know that we're doing the right thing.
  This farm bill also includes significant reforms. Of course, some 
people think we went too far. Others think we didn't go far enough. But 
everybody seems to agree that they never thought that we could get an 
agreement that went as far as it has. That is what this farm bill is 
about. We got the different groups into the room and produced an 
agreement that everyone feels like they've been part of the process, 
even if they didn't get exactly what they wanted.
  This bill does make significant changes, including a hard cap on 
subsidies for the first time ever. We've taken the $2.5 million 
adjusted gross income cap down to $500,000. And we have put a hard cap 
on of $1 million so that anybody over $1 million of adjusted gross 
income will not receive farm payments after this bill passes.
  We have also cut the soft cap that I mentioned on adjusted gross 
income to $500,000. We also, in this bill, required direct attribution 
for the first time of farm program payments so that people won't be 
able to get around the payment limits by receiving payments through 
different business entities. These are not insignificant by any means, 
and these changes will affect thousands of farmers nationwide.
  In the area of conservation, too, we have made significant changes as 
well as new investments. One thing we've done, we have included the 
same kind of payment limits on conservation programs that we have had 
for farm programs. That way, there's more money available to more 
farmers to participate in these popular programs.
  The bill also includes $3.8 billion in new spending for conservation 
programs over the next 5 years. These programs help farmers protect the 
environment with programs that reduce erosion, enhance water supply, 
improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat, and reduce damage 
caused by floods and other natural disasters.
  This farm bill provides new resources to protect and preserve the 
Chesapeake Bay and other high-priority areas, and it encourages private 
land owners to provide public access for hunting, fishing and other 
recreational activities.
  In the area of renewable energy, this farm bill invests in programs 
that will help encourage the development of cellulosic ethanol in this 
country. In my opinion, this represents the future for American 
agriculture. Once we can establish the first facilities that can make 
ethanol from agricultural waste and other biomass products, we will 
take a huge step in a new direction for agriculture and for rural 
America.

[[Page H8688]]

  Many of the best feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol will also provide 
benefits for wildlife and for the environment. Renewable fuels have 
brought new investment and new jobs for rural America, and this is one 
of the most exciting things that's happened in my life and in American 
agriculture.
  We have also proposed increases in the farm bill's nutrition title. 
This has been a source of some controversy this week, but not because 
people disagree with the idea that we should be increasing these 
benefits which have been stagnant for many years and making sure that 
benefits keep pace with inflation,
  Instead, the controversy has involved the proposal that the Ways and 
Means Committee has proposed to offset the cost of these changes. I 
hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that 
there is a difference between closing a loophole in current tax law and 
increasing taxes. This proposal won't raise taxes, but it will hold 
some foreign companies who should be paying taxes accountable for what 
they owe.
  The Agriculture Committee agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that these 
changes in the nutrition program were important to help working 
Americans access these nutrition programs, and we have found a 
reasonable, fiscally responsible way to do this.
  Another area where this farm bill makes great strides is in funding 
for programs that strengthen the fruit and vegetable industry. We have 
worked with this industry and have included $1.5 billion in new 
mandatory money for them in this farm bill. That's the first time that 
we've done this.
  The Specialty Crop Alliance, United Fresh, and many other fruit and 
vegetable groups strongly support this bill as passed by the 
Agriculture Committee.
  We also worked with several caucuses in crafting this bill, including 
the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the 
Congressional Native American Caucus. With the Congressional Black 
Caucus, we have worked to address important issues, including a program 
in the manager's amendment that will help black farmers who did not get 
their day in court due to inadequate notice and an arbitrary deadline 
established after the Pigford case was settled. This provision will 
allow farmers who filed their claims after the national deadline to 
have their cases heard.
  We have also included other provisions to make USDA programs more 
accessible to minority, socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers 
and ranchers. This includes provisions to expand access to land, 
credit, conservation and rural development programs.
  One of the most important compromises reached in this farm bill was 
an agreement to finally, after a long delay, implement mandatory 
country of origin labeling. We put both sides in the room; we told them 
to come out with a compromise, and they delivered. As a result, with 
this farm bill, consumers in this country will finally be able to tell 
where their fruit and vegetables and meat products in their grocery 
stores are coming from, and we think it's about time.
  We accomplished all of this under an open process where everyone was 
included. All members of our committee were engaged in this process, 
and I'm proud to say that some of our newest freshman Members, 
including colleagues that have been there for years, really brought a 
lot of constructive ideas and a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the 
table and helped us come up with a bill that we are all very proud of.
  There is something in this bill for everybody to like. There's 
probably something in this bill for everybody not to like. But it's a 
step in the right direction and has broad support, as I said, from many 
organizations. And I encourage my colleagues to support this farm bill 
which supports all of us with food, fiber and fuel.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Chairman, it's a sad day for American agriculture when the 
Democratic leadership pits America's farmers and ranchers against 
America's working class. The tax increases included in this bill stand 
to jeopardize millions of American jobs by raising taxes on companies 
that do business in the U.S. Not only does this provision cunningly 
added by the Democrat leadership after the bill left the control of the 
Agriculture Committee jeopardize American jobs, it stands to violate 
treaties with other nations and lead to significant ramifications for 
U.S. companies with operations in other countries. Worst of all, we're 
not even considering a tax bill; we're considering a farm bill, a farm 
bill that has been twisted into a partisan pawn.
  At the beginning of the week, I stood beside the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee to voice my support for this bill that we had 
worked in a bipartisan fashion to bring to the floor. I had only one 
caveat, that the offsets not be in the form of tax increases. Not 24 
hours before we were to consider this bill on the floor, we were made 
aware of a tax increase provision that had been added to this language 
behind closed doors. Unfortunately, all of the good things contained in 
this bill have been overshadowed by very partisan elements of what 
should be a bipartisan bill. Today we should be debating the merits of 
this bill, a bill that was carefully crafted to meet the calls for 
reform and expand programs such as nutrition and fruits and vegetable 
programs. But the leadership has decided to take American agriculture 
out of the debate on the farm bill.
  Heading into the reauthorization of the farm bill, Agriculture 
Committee Republicans anticipated problems with the budget, given the 
collapse of the baseline projections for the commodity programs. The 
lack of funding for the nutrition interests further compounded the 
problem. As the number of nonfarm interests in farm bill funding has 
grown and the availability of funding dwindled, farm programs have 
become particularly vulnerable, and the Democratic leadership and the 
Budget Committee refused to address the needs of a forward-looking farm 
bill.
  From the start, the Agriculture Committee Republicans have made our 
concerns about funding for this bill very clear. When the chairman 
announced his projected farm bill time line on May 17, I urged him not 
to rush the process and find the offsets before promising the money in 
the farm bill language. Again and again, I, along with my subcommittee 
ranking members, have implored the committee to slow down, to wait 
until the money is available before moving ahead.
  At the Conservation, Credit, Energy and Rural Development 
Subcommittee markup on May 22, both subcommittee ranking member Frank 
Lucas and I urged caution in rushing the process.
  On May 24, at the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry markup, the message 
was the same. The subsequent markups on June 6, 7, 15 and 19, the 
message to the leadership of this committee was the same; slow down and 
find the money. We were consistently told the money would be made 
available, and we were consistently denied any further information.
  It would be disingenuous for my Agriculture Committee Democrat 
colleagues to claim our objections are at all new or recently 
conceived. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion throughout this 
process and had the opportunity to take a bipartisan product of the 
committee to the floor. But our work has been undermined by the 
addition of tax increases without consultation, review or due process 
to cover the extra costs of the bill.
  Despite repeated assurances that the $4 billion in offsets would not 
come from tax increases, here we are, looking at tax increases as a 
funding mechanism of choice employed by the Democratic leadership.
  Moreover, to insinuate that Democrats were made to do anything by the 
Republicans' opposition to revisions that would directly impact U.S. 
jobs is preposterous. The Democrats and the Democrats alone are solely 
responsible for any modifications made to this bill after it left the 
Agriculture Committee.
  Because the Democrat leadership won't invest in American agriculture, 
they're calling for increased taxes to pick up the tab to fund our 
domestic priorities by increasing taxes on companies that provide 
millions of Americans with good jobs and stimulate economic growth.
  I anticipate this tax increase will likely be the first of many 
needed to fund the priorities that bulge between the majority's 
budgets.

[[Page H8689]]

  Rural America is served best when we work together in a bipartisan 
fashion. With passage of this rule, partisanship invades rural America 
and destroys bipartisan support for the underlying legislation.
  I want to be clear, I support the farm bill. I do not support the 
nonagriculture, non-Agriculture Committee approved tax increase that 
has been shamefully attached to this legislation.
  Prior to the announcement of this tax increase, it was clear that the 
administration, which has opposed this bipartisan effort, it was clear 
that a veto threat was headed our way.
  A bipartisan farm bill without this tax increase would have produced 
a veto-proof majority and would have sent this farm bill soaring into 
the negotiations with the Senate. Now this farm bill will not be an 
effective product to move American agriculture forward.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Rangel from New York.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Chairman, it's an honor for me to be here. I wish 
that we didn't have to mark up the SCHIP bill so that I could be here 
for the rest of the theater.
  I have been overly impressed with the remarkable bipartisan work that 
Mr. Goodlatte and Chairman Peterson have been doing on a very 
complicated piece of legislation. And I was very surprised that, with 
their ability to, so-call, offset the expenditures of the bill, that 
they came to the conclusion that when it came to food stamps they ran 
out of money.

                              {time}  2000

  Ran out of money to such an extent that I was really completely taken 
off guard when they told me that the Ways and Means Committee should 
provide $4 billion to pay for the food stamps. And I admit I don't 
follow the Agriculture Committee's work as closely as I should have. 
But knowing that Republicans as well as Democrats wanted to make 
certain that 26 million people will continue to have food stamps, I 
said, where would you expect the tax-writing committee to get the money 
that is necessary to keep this bipartisan agreement to? I assume if you 
went to the Energy and Commerce Committee, you would be going there for 
energy. If you went to the Transportation Committee, you would go there 
for transportation. And I assume that we talk the same language, and 
the Ways and Means Committee is the tax-writing committee.
  And when you said it was important to maintain this bipartisan 
agreement, I looked over the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means 
Committee. It wasn't $4 billion in Social Security. It wasn't $4 
billion in Medicare. It wasn't $4 billion in training, though we were 
working hard to make certain to break down the barriers so that our 
farmers could go overseas.
  So there is not one living person on the Agriculture Committee that 
didn't ask me to get it out of what? Taxes. Sorry to use that word, and 
I don't know who is offended. But we felt that we weren't going to 
raise individual taxes. We weren't going to increase corporate taxes. 
So I thought that common sense and political sense would mean that we 
would find out who is not paying taxes and bring that revenue in so 
that we can have a bipartisan agreement in the House and the Senate in 
order to do this.
  Now, strange things can happen, and it appears as though it has. But 
I just want you to know that you can call it offset. You can call it 
revenue enhancement. And we call it fraud and evasion and equity and 
fair play. And it is coming out of the tax-writing committee.
  I just hope you never come to the tax-writing committee and ask for 
relief and, when you get it, say you don't want tax increases.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to 
the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that neither I nor any 
other Republican on this committee that I know of ever went to him and 
asked for any, any funds whatsoever, certainly not from a tax increase.
  Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the distinguished ranking 
member on the Agriculture Committee.
  (Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EVERETT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 2007 
farm bill. The budget resolution that we were forced to work with was 
woefully inadequate for production agriculture. Moreover, the Ways and 
Means Committee, regardless of what the chairman says, included a tax 
increase on companies to pay for this bill.
  I have great concerns for Southeast peanut producers, who grow almost 
85 percent of all peanuts grown in this Nation. They are the number one 
losers in this bill. There is included, in the manager's amendment, an 
important new initiative that will not only help all peanut producers 
address rising input costs, but will ensure greater yields and better 
stewardship of the land through enhanced crop rotation. But the $10 
million annually allocated for this program is not enough to ensure 
this program is successful.
  The ``Farm Bill'' is called the farm bill for one reason--to address 
agricultural needs of our farmers and ranchers. However, the bill 
before us seems to forget the farmer and rural America--specifically at 
a time when many of them are facing difficult times.
  I understand the financial constraints that we had to work on this 
bill. But in light of those constraints, significant funding increases 
were given to conservation and nutrition programs at the expense of 
production agrculture. Additionally, I oppose the last minute 
developments that have occurred to attach a provision to increase taxes 
to pay for some of these increases.
  I strongly oppose these actions, they should not be in the Farm Bill, 
and overall it will hurt Americans.
  I am also concerned over how this additional funding is being 
allocated. Specifically, $1.6 billion was specified for specialty 
crops--most of this money going to California--a state that is ranked 
10th nationally in receiving federal subsidies. Additionally, $150 
million was set aside in the bill for air pollution in California.
  Secondly, conservation funding receives a $1.35 billion increase in 
funding. A significant amount of that money has been set aside for 
specific watersheds. In particular, the Chesapeake Bay Region is 
receiving $400 million alone for conservation programs for this 
watershed.
  Historically, the Chesapeake Bay and other watersheds specified in 
the bill have received billions of dollars in the past for these 
efforts and should not be given special preference in this bill. 
Chesapeake Bay has received over $700 million annually for conservation 
programs addressing the watershed. Why do they need preference 
throughout the program when the rest of the nation is also addressing 
similar issues?
  I am specifically concerned over the preference being given to 
several watersheds under the new Regional Water Enhancement Program. I 
was pleased that this new program was included in the bill--it is an 
issue very close and dear to my heart. I have been working on this 
legislation for several years and I am pleased that much of the 
language of my Farm Reservoir Act has been included in this program. 
This program will provide cost-share assistance to agricultural 
producers for projects like the construction of on-site reservoirs. It 
upsets me that specific watersheds were given priority consideration 
under this program.
  Fortunately, an amendment during full mark-up was included to limit 
these watersheds in receiving no more than half of the funding. 
However, I believe that the Regional Water Enhancement Program should 
not be a place for ``earmarks'' but open to all regions of the 
country--all who are dealing with water issues that are important to 
their region.
  For my part of the country, farmers in the Southeast are facing a 
devastating drought and farmers are faced with the loss of most--if not 
all--of their crops. Many ranchers are being forced to sell their herds 
since they have no feed for them. This program would help many of these 
farmers to build farm reservoirs that will help farmers during these 
difficult times and could help save many of their crops--a savings to 
taxpayers in the future in crop insurance and disaster payments.
  Some would try and argue that my state is guilty of also receiving 
large subsidies that I have just spoken against. Many of you may be 
surprised to know that Alabama is in the bottom half of the nation in 
receiving federal subsidies--27th out of 50. I like to also point out 
that 72 percent of all farmers and ranchers in Alabama do not collect 
government subsidies.

[[Page H8690]]

  These are the same farmers and ranchers that are struggling with 
severe drought conditions and are hoping for some federal assistance to 
help them get through these difficult times--whether through disaster 
payments or federal programs like the Regional Water Enhancement Act. 
However, a permanent disaster payment was not incorporated in this bill 
because there was not enough money.
  All of the programs in the Farm Bill are important but to receive 
such a drastic increase while producers are struggling does not seem 
right. Claiming there is no money to include a permanent disaster 
payment program for farmers who face significant financial loss of 
crops due to natural disasters like hurricanes, drought, wild fires, 
disease, pests and tornadoes--is wrong!
  I look forward to continually working with the Chairman and Ranking 
Member to address many of these concerns as we move forward.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 
minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my 
good friend Mr. Lantos from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, my good friend from Minnesota, 
Collin Peterson, for his outstanding leadership on this critically 
important bill.
  Today we reconfirm one of this government's most solemn commitments: 
reaching out to help the most desperate people on the planet. By 
reauthorizing and strengthening the longstanding and successful Public 
Law 480 food aid program, we show the entire world that we are serious 
about using our vast resources for resoundingly positive action.
  The 850 million people around the globe without sufficient food cling 
to a precarious existence: foraging for daily sustenance, unable to 
take care of their starving families, and locked into a perpetual cycle 
of poverty and hunger.
  The lack of food is particularly vicious for HIV and AIDS patients, 
whose medications often make them even hungrier. They now live longer 
with the medications the United States has provided under landmark 
legislation we in Congress passed 5 years ago, but, Madam Chairman, in 
a cruel twist of fate, they trade the pains of the disease for the 
pangs of hunger.
  The plight of the starving represents one of the most disturbing and 
dire societal shortfalls on this planet, and addressing worldwide 
hunger represents the most unambiguous American moral obligation that 
faces us today.
  That is why the international food aid programs reauthorized in 
Chairman Peterson's bill we are considering today demand our full and 
enthusiastic support. We sit here discussing this bill in the 
comfortable, air-conditioned Capitol, where we cannot really fathom 
what it is like to be scrounging for food in one of the world's many 
developing nations. I hope my colleagues will remember this when 
considering any effort to weaken these indispensable initiatives.
  Our bill reauthorizes the historic and widely praised Public Law 480 
food aid program. Public Law 480 was originally established in 1954, 
and it propelled the United States into worldwide leadership in the 
donation of food to developing nations and their millions of people. 
For more than half a century, our groundbreaking law has utilized the 
abundant agriculture resources of America to help ameliorate hunger 
around the globe.
  Public Law 480 and the other food aid programs are so successful 
because of a simple recipe: the combination of the American people's 
compassion, and the dedication of private organizations and the 
companies that make the programs work. This supply chain highlights the 
unparalleled productivity of our farmers and processors and the 
dedication of those who administer, transport, and distribute food aid.
  This broad and diverse network has enabled Congress and the executive 
branch to sustain strong funding levels to feed the world's hungry for 
decades. Our legislation before Congress today maintains this strong 
coalition; yet at the same time, it updates and modernizes the program 
to make it more effective.
  I am particularly delighted to highlight that this bill restores 
mandatory funding for the landmark McGovern-Dole program, which lives 
up to the accomplishments of the two great former Senators, one 
Republican, one Democrat, who created it. This program specifically 
targets the legions among the world's starving who are least able to 
help themselves: the children of the poor across the globe.
  The bill also increases funding for developmental food aid. The 
administration in recent years has blurred the line between so-called 
``developmental food aid'' and ``emergency food aid.'' But with 850 
million people starving on this planet and the vast majority of them 
chronically short of sustenance, the beneficiaries of developmental 
food aid are just as needy as recipients of emergency food aid. They 
don't care what pot of money funds the donated food; they only care to 
see their families fed.
  The manager's amendment proposed by the distinguished chairman Mr. 
Peterson includes language that was passed by my Foreign Affairs 
Committee authorizing a critical $2.5 billion for international food 
aid programs.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in passing this most important 
legislation, which will ensure the United States continues to lead the 
way in addressing the patently unacceptable plight of the world's 
hungry.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, another of our ranking 
members on the committee, Mr. Lucas.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member 
for this effort this evening.
  I would have never thought that I would be standing on the floor of 
the United States House advocating ultimately a ``no'' vote on the farm 
bill. I would have never thought that. As a farmer from Oklahoma, as an 
individual with a degree in agricultural economics from Oklahoma State, 
I would have never thought that I would be advocating a ``no'' vote on 
a farm bill.
  How did we get to this point? Let's remember, first and foremost, 
farm bills, while the goal is to help rural America, while the goal is 
to help make farming and ranching a thriving industry, the real goal is 
providing the food and fiber supply that feeds and clothes this Nation 
and the world. And since the 1930s, we have done an exceptional job 
with these farm bills, an exceptional job, and it has been a 
nonpartisan, nonpolitical process. We may disagree by region, we might 
disagree by commodity group, but it was always pulling together for the 
good of this country and the consumers that we serve around the world.
  We have now come off of two extremely successful farm bills: the 1996 
bill with its dramatic reform, flexibility in production decisions, 
certainty of payment; the 2002 farm bill, building on that with a 
safety net. Two very successful farm bills.
  As a matter of fact, they were so successful that the amount of money 
set aside for the 2002 farm bill, we spent $60 billion less than was 
projected, and that was where we got into trouble, and that is what has 
got us to this point. Sixty billion dollars we saved, and we got not 
one penny's worth of credit for it.
  So we began this farm bill process with $60 billion less than we had 
5 years ago. That was a decision made by the senior leadership in the 
new majority. When you are $60 billion down and trying to move 
successful and popular programs forward, you have got problems. 
Chairman Peterson worked diligently. The entire committee worked 
diligently. But, ultimately, when we were not given credit, we had to 
depend on a massive tax increase.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to 
respond.
  I just want people to remember what happened with the '95-'96 farm 
bill, which was a partisan farm bill. So, we've been down this road 
before.
  I recognize the distinguished subcommittee chairman, my good friend, 
Mr. Holden from Pennsylvania, chairman of the Conservation Credit, 
Energy and Research Subcommittee and vice-chairman of the House 
Agriculture Committee, for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time. And thank 
you for your leadership on this important piece of legislation that we 
have worked on in a very bipartisan manner. And thank you for the 
leeway that you have given the subcommittee chairman in bringing this 
product to the floor.

[[Page H8691]]

  And it's not easy. We are a diverse country when it comes to our 
agriculture interests, and the diversity on the committee reflects 
that. But we all came together. We all gave up things that we wanted in 
the bill. The chairman has been talking for 2 years about permanent 
disaster relief. That's not in the bill because we couldn't afford 
everything. Everything that I wanted for the northeast is not in the 
bill. Everything the ranking member wanted for Virginia or my good 
friend, Mr. Lucas, for Oklahoma is not in the bill. We all had to come 
together, and we have delivered a product that is fair.
  In the subcommittee that I chair, under the conservation title, a 
$4.3 billion increase in conservation; that's above baseline, 35 
percent increase. We went around the country hearing what farmers cared 
about the most about conservation; it was EQIP. What did we do with 
EQIP? We put 50 percent additional funding in EQIP.
  In my neck of the woods and in the ranking member's neck of the woods 
in the mid-Atlantic, farmland preservation, by far. When we went to New 
York to have the hearing, the importance of farmland preservation. In 
this bill, we have a 100 percent increase in farmland preservation, as 
well as other water quality improvements. For those who care about the 
Chesapeake Bay, $150 million for river restoration. So we have a strong 
conservation title.
  Credit. We made improvements for credit that we will be discussing 
shortly after general debates that will make credit more accessible in 
rural America.
  Energy. Everybody in this Congress, not just committee, but everybody 
in this Congress has been talking about the need for us to become more 
energy independent. In this bill, we have $2.4 billion in the energy 
title; $2 billion in loan guarantees so we can help this infant 
industry of cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel and take advantage of our 
agricultural natural resources that are so abundant in this country so 
that we can now take a step towards being no longer dependent upon the 
smooth, continuous flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.
  This is a good bill, and I ask everyone to support it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to 
yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from California (Mrs. Bono).
  Mrs. BONO. Madam Chairman, I share the concerns of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas). But I also would like to speak today on a 
specific provision within H.R. 2419 that I'm happy to say will soon 
bring to resolution the implementation of what Congress has wanted for 
6 years, country-of-origin labeling, the act of simply letting U.S. 
consumers know where the product they're picking up in the grocery 
store is from. Sounds simple, logical and straightforward; yet for too 
long Congress has been putting off the implementation of mandatory 
COOL.
  In 2001, I introduced an amendment to the last farm bill to provide 
for COOL, and the amendment passed with strong bipartisan support. I 
have continued to push for mandatory labeling of fresh fruits and 
vegetables ever since 2001, and the debate has definitely evolved ever 
since.
  Because of this, led by the efforts of Chairman Peterson and Ranking 
Member Goodlatte in having all viewpoints come together to discuss a 
solution, we now have a product that can be widely supported by 
consumers and farmers. In particular, the changes relating to produce 
will ensure that we have sound policy that isn't subject to the whim of 
misinterpreting congressional intent by the Department of 
Agriculture. From reasonable fines and penalties for not following the 
law to a provision that allows for the labeling of a State or region 
from which the product came to further spotlight our high-quality 
domestic production, the agreement on COOL is a strong one as depicted 
in the Manager's Amendment.

  Madam Chairman, with recent concerns over importing products from 
foreign countries like China, the importance of country of origin 
labeling as a matter of public safety and the right of the consumer to 
make an informed choice has only become more urgent.
  Again, I want to express my sincere appreciation to Chairman Peterson 
for his interest and focus on addressing this issue, as he was able to 
bring parties together for a reasonable and bipartisan solution to 
mandatory COOL.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I am now pleased to recognize another 
subcommittee chairman, the chairman of the Specialty Crops Subcommittee 
and my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) for 2 minutes.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Thank you, Chairman Peterson, for your leadership 
throughout the development of this farm bill and working diligently to 
craft a bill that protects our Nation's farmers, our environment, and 
our families of rural America.
  The legislation under consideration by this House is critically 
important to rural America. I'm pleased that our subcommittee has 
worked on this to make sure that the value of agriculture is clearly 
understood.
  The peanut industry contributes $800 million in value to our rural 
areas. The sugar industry creates some 372,000 direct and indirect jobs 
in 42 States, and our rural development programs fill a critical gap in 
providing infrastructure for our rural areas, ensuring that folks in 
rural America have adequate EMS units, fire trucks, libraries, and 
water and sewer systems.
  Particularly with regard to rural development, this bill will further 
enhance these rural programs that will allow rural America to have 
better access to technology and better help for rural entrepreneurs. In 
fact, the new Rural Entrepreneur and Microenterprise Assistance program 
will reach some of our most important businesses, those companies 
employing 10 or less people, which now are the biggest drivers of 
economic development in rural America.
  And the Rural Broadband Loan program and the Community Connect Grant 
program are two extremely important pieces that will help the citizens 
of rural America, making sure they have access to high-speed Internet 
that can often make the difference in the success of rural business and 
rural opportunities, and help our businesses, schools, health, and make 
sure that family life is better.
  Just below this Chamber, downstairs on the first floor of this 
historic building, you can look up at the ceiling and see inscribed 
there the words of Daniel Webster who said that ``farmers are the 
founders of civilization.'' I hope that, indeed, all of us will 
remember this; that our very existence depends on the success of our 
farmers and on agriculture in making sure that rural America is 
respected and able to succeed as it will under this bill.
  Madam Chairman, I urge all of our colleagues to support this bill so 
that, indeed, it will be the strong success we need throughout rural 
America.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, it's my pleasure to 
yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), a very 
strong member of the committee.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairman, I come tonight to this floor with a 
very similar attitude that most of us on this side of the aisle are 
feeling. We have worked together on this farm bill, worked in good 
faith with the chairman and the subcommittee chairman. And as the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Rural 
Development, I can say that the most important work in Congress that I 
have been doing is on this farm bill.
  But in the markup committee process, Madam Chairman, I offered an 
amendment with a sense of Congress being that there would be no tax 
increases to pay for this farm bill. And the chairman of the committee, 
Madam Chairman, ruled it out of order, and his words were, ``No one 
here is talking about a tax increase.''
  So, we've gone in good faith in developing this farm bill, but now 
all bets are off because we were not told the truth, and we find 
ourselves tonight in the very awkward position of having to oppose a 
farm bill that we helped craft because of the tax increase.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am now pleased to 
recognize the chairman of our General Farm Commodities Subcommittee, 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), for 2 minutes.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the chairman for his hard work, and really on 
both sides of the aisle, for all the Members who put in long hours, who 
traveled across this country and listened to farmers and commodity 
groups speak.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2419. It's an 
important piece of legislation.
  Madam Chairman, this has been a long process. In the early part of 
the year, our Subcommittee on General

[[Page H8692]]

Farm Commodities and Risk Management continued to hold hearings. We 
listened to groups. All the groups came, they talked, they made their 
recommendations.
  The message we heard from farmers was that they like the basic 
framework that was created under the 2002 farm bill. Not only did we 
preserve that framework, but we made improvements so that the safety 
net worked more effectively.
  And yes, as a result of the farm bill in 2002, we saved money, which 
meant that we had a greater challenge. We maintained the three-legged 
stool that supports farmers through direct payments, counter-cyclical 
payments, and marketing loan benefits. We adjusted loan rates and 
target prices to achieve a rebalancing between commodities that was 
long overdue.
  We included several improvements to the cotton marketing loan program 
to make it more reflective of current market realities and values, as 
well as corrected problems in the program that we experienced since the 
elimination of the Step 2 program.
  We also provided assistance to the textile industry to enhance their 
competitiveness and help keep those jobs here at home.
  This could be called not only an Ag bill; it's a jobs bill, as well 
as a national defense bill, because we use it for food and fiber to 
feed our people.
  I'm also proud that we're also providing farmers with the opportunity 
to experiment with revenue-based counter-cyclical programs. While most 
producers are satisfied with the current counter-cyclical program, some 
farmers are interested in the revenue-based approach.
  Providing farmers with the option to choose between these two types 
of counter-cyclical programs allows them to make the best economic 
decision for their families. This revenue counter-cyclical program will 
also provide us with better insight into how the program works so we 
can determine if it is a better model for future farm bills.
  H.R. 2419 contains Rural Development programs that will better 
facilitate the financing of essential rural infrastructures like public 
water and waste disposal systems. It establishes grant and loan 
programs for rural healthcare facilities. It will improve access to 
broadband telecommunications services in rural areas.
  The Bill also expands funding for a host of conservation programs, 
including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). 
Maintaining the 60 percent share of EQIP funding for livestock is 
extremely important to North Carolina's poultry and pork producers.
  As a representative from one of the most agriculturally diverse 
states in the Nation, and a member of the Horticulture and Organic 
Agriculture Subcommittee, I am particularly pleased that we are 
providing, for the first time ever, mandatory dollars for programs that 
benefit fruit and vegetable producers as well as the ever growing 
organic agriculture industry.
  For our tobacco farmers who have been trying to get into specialty 
crop production since the buyout, these new programs will support the 
industry through projects in research, marketing, education, pest and 
disease management, production, and food safety.
  We are strengthening the nutrition title through extra money for the 
Emergency Food Assistance Program; raising the minimum benefit for Food 
Stamps, which hasn't been done since 1977; and eliminating cap on 
dependent care, which opens up the program to more working families.
  We are reforming crop insurance to provide better coverage for 
organic producers; expanding data mining to root out waste, fraud, and 
abuse; and providing an extra option for producers to obtain 
supplemental area-based crop insurance in addition to their current 
revenue or yield policies.
  We have accomplished all this, and so much more. But we did it with a 
responsible budget. Operating under the Pay As You GO (PAYGO) 
requirements has posed difficult challenges for the Agriculture 
Committee, but I believe we have managed to preserve for farmers a 
sound safety net that provides extra protections, while staying within 
our budget.

  In addition to my service on the Agriculture Committee, I serve on 
the House Budget Committee. Yesterday, we had a hearing with the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General 
of the United States.
  They testified about the budget calamity this Administration and the 
previous Republican Majority have left this country in. A calamity 
which made the job of passing a farm bill that much harder this year.
  According to their testimony, were it not for the policies of this 
Administration and its Republican allies in Congress, the federal 
budget would be in balance today.
  Yet the Republican priorities are so out of whack that today, one of 
the fastest growing segments of the federal budget is interest on the 
national debt.
  And most of that debt is financed by foreign countries like China who 
may not always have America's best interests at heart.
  It was a Democratic Congress that restored fiscal discipline to the 
federal budget through PAYGO rules, and this Farm Bill responsibly 
adheres to those rules.
  I thank the Chairman for his hard work on moving this bill to this 
point, and I urge my colleagues to support farm families, support 
feeding children, support moving to renewable fuels, and vote for H.R. 
2419.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas, another of the subcommittee 
ranking members on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Neugebauer.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chairman, I woke up on Monday this week very 
excited about the opportunity to bring this farm bill to this floor, 
but as you can imagine, my disappointment tonight because of the 
culmination of 2 years worth of hearings all across America, 
subcommittee hearings, 31 hours of markup in full committee working on 
a bill that is going to be good for America, good for American 
agriculture, working in a bipartisan way to make sure that all of 
agriculture has a bright future for this country, making sure that 
America will have a good source of food and fiber for the years to come 
and that it will not become dependent on importing food as we have 
become in importing energy in this country.
  And you can imagine my disappointment because we've worked in a very 
bipartisan way with the chairman, working on the safety net for 
American producers when the commodity prices were low and then working 
on a safety net when we have drought conditions, weather conditions, to 
provide an additional safety net for them.
  But unfortunately, we were duped, I guess is the best way I can say 
it. As we were working along with the leadership, they kept saying we 
are going to find some additional offsets so that they can expand these 
nutrition programs while at the same time asking American producers to 
take cuts in payments, but with the understanding that we weren't going 
to have any new taxes. Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, that isn't the 
way this farm bill was written up.
  Today, without any debate, without any discussion, the American 
people's farm bill was put in jeopardy. It now faces a Presidential 
veto. It now faces opposition from Members of this body that would have 
voted for this farm bill, but now they are not going to vote for this 
farm bill because it raises taxes.
  And what we've known and what we've tried to say to the American 
people over the last few months is we knew this was coming because this 
new leadership has started off on the old way they used to do business 
under the promise of doing business in a new way, by taxing and 
spending, taxing and spending. And it's unfortunate that we would bring 
that kind of politics to the American farm policy.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has 5\1/2\ minutes; the 
gentleman from Virginia has 17\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the ranking member for yielding time.
  Madam Chairman, we started off in a very bipartisan way to put this 
together. We worked in good faith. We worked long hours to come up with 
a really good farm bill. And when it was all done, we all felt very 
good about it. We had a great night. We patted ourselves on the back, 
very pleased with the commodities program, pleased with conservation. 
It was a good bill.
  And where are we today? We've had this tax provision put in at a late 
hour. We have a tax provision that was not properly vetted by the Ways 
and Means Committee. It was placed in this by the Democratic 
leadership, using the Rules Committee to legislate. And this has 
threatened a very good farm bill.
  There are problems with this. First of all, I don't think we really 
know

[[Page H8693]]

what the real impact is going to be with this tax provision on the cost 
of feed, fertilizer and pesticides. Many of the companies that are 
going to be taxed with this new tax will be forced to raise prices on 
this. And our farmers are already suffering from the high cost of 
inputs, particularly in my State of Louisiana, which is suffering from 
the aftermath of two hurricanes.
  Furthermore, this bill has Davis-Bacon provisions in this which are 
going to hurt a nascent industry, the nascent cellulosic ethanol 
industry. I spoke to the CEO of a company today, and this is going to 
raise the cost of building these new facilities by 10 to 20 percent. 
This is an industry that we want to see grow. We don't want to tax it.
  Finally, the bill places unfunded mandates on the States. I tried in 
committee with an amendment and tried to get this to a full floor 
debate to help our States continue to modernize the Food Stamp program, 
to have the flexibility to do the right thing. This bill, the 
underlying bill, has provisions in it that take away the flexibility 
that our States currently have. It puts the State of Indiana in real 
jeopardy, at risk of losing $100 million.
  This bill is less and less about farmers and it's more and more about 
pure raw politics.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the 
Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, this bill left our committee on a 
bipartisan basis and with my enthusiastic support. I agree with many of 
the laudatory comments made by my colleagues across the aisle. You will 
hear that there is a broad group of associations, commodity groups, 
and, most importantly, producers that support the bill that left our 
committee.
  Now you need to know the rest of the story. My colleagues and I were 
repeatedly told that the necessary offsets would not come from tax 
increases. We have just heard Chairman Rangel confirm that his taxing 
committee provided taxes for the offset. I was misled, I hope 
unintentionally, but nonetheless misled. Over the last 48 hours, poison 
pills have been added that the cynical among us would conclude were 
intentional; short-sighted, but intentional.
  Each of us must weigh the good and bad in all the legislation that we 
consider. Great judgment is required. Last week at this time, almost at 
this exact time, I fully expected to be here tonight perhaps fighting 
off bipartisan opposition to this bill, but nonetheless supporting this 
bill, not participating in a raw, partisan fight that was totally 
unnecessary.
  This bill is proproducer and prohungry around the world, but it is 
antibusiness and antimanufacturing jobs. It is an affront to States 
rights and unnecessarily panders to unions.
  Sadly, we have gone from a bill that should have passed with broad 
bipartisan support to one that will not enjoy that support.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
chairman of the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee, my friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for his hard work.
  Madam Chairman, how many times do we have to hear over and over and 
over from the borrow-and-spend community across the aisle here? I hope 
that they would remember there are positive things that happened.
  We brought the livestock community together. They are moving forward. 
It is good for America. We brought the dairy community together. For 
perhaps the first time, there is no dairy war going on because they sat 
down in a compromise. We can't thank them enough. You might remember 
that. Also, we addressed the issue of mandatory country of origin 
labeling. We worked out a compromise. We are going to go forward and 
meet the consumers' wishes on that.
  As chairman of the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee, I 
cannot say how pleased I am for those compromises and the overall steps 
this legislation takes. Is there still room for improvement? Sure, 
there is. But the Agriculture Committee came together and wrote a farm 
bill for 50 States that would not only benefit farmers, ranchers and 
rural America, but benefits everyone.
  As everyone walks away today at the time when we finish this bill, I 
would like them to remember one thing: Every man, woman and child has a 
vested interest in agriculture. By ensuring that our producers have an 
adequate safety net, we in turn ensure we have the safest, most 
plentiful and affordable food in the world.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished 
member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chairman, I am a proud member of the 
Agriculture Committee. My grandfather was a county agent. My mother was 
an extension service agent. One out of three Nebraskans make their 
living in the field of agriculture.
  Of all the rancor and divisiveness in this House, the Agriculture 
Committee has been one place where cooperation and comity is the 
tradition. I was proud to be a part of crafting this farm bill. The 
farm bill passed out of committee by a voice vote. No one objected.
  It is not perfect. It is a huge piece of legislation with many moving 
parts. But I felt that it did make progress in promoting agriculture 
entrepreneurship, agriculture-based energy production and a renewal of 
conservation in land stewardship goals.
  But the end of this process has been seriously disappointing. The 
spirit of the Agriculture Committee's work has been violated. I want a 
vibrant agriculture system that feeds our country, helps feed the world 
and in turn preserves a way of life, a tradition that marks the 
character of our great country.
  Madam Chairman, I urge the majority party to get this process back on 
track.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), another of our great 
subcommittee chairmen, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department 
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. BACA. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support for this farm 
bill. Let me say that clearly this bill does not increase taxes. As 
chair of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, 
Nutrition, and Forestry, I want to say that I am especially proud of 
this farm bill, what it does for the nutrition of minorities, seniors, 
disabled, single parents and for our veterans.
  Right now there are 38 million Americans who do not have enough to 
eat. Eleven percent of the population are going hungry. Today in the 
Latino community and the African American community, that rate is 
double.
  This farm bill fights hunger in America by making an historic 
investment in nutrition. Our nutrition title will benefit over 13 
million American families.
  Currently the average food stamp recipient receives only $21 a week. 
That is unacceptable. This farm bill will make food stamps keep up with 
the cost of living. Gas, health care, housing and grocery bills have 
gone up, but food stamps haven't kept up. We are going to change that.
  This is going to help working families, our disabled, our senior 
citizens, our veterans and our single parents. Most importantly, it is 
going to help our children. Fifty percent of food stamp recipients are 
kids. That is what this farm bill is about: feeding our children; 
leaving no child behind. This farm bill will ensure that children will 
have access to fresh fruits and vegetables in all schools by expanding 
the USDA snack program to all 50 States.
  This farm bill ensures that senior citizens and disabled adults have 
enough to eat by continuing the Commodity Foods Supplemental Program 
and expanding access to farmers' markets.
  What it will also do is help military families. For the first time, 
this bill exempts military combat pay from being counted against the 
income of men and women who are fighting for us.

[[Page H8694]]

  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. It is an 
excellent bill that meets needs across America and helps all of us.
  We're also going to make it easier for them to handle their paperwork 
processing by allowing telephone signatures.
  And what about our military families? This is the first Farm Bill to 
exempt Special Military Combat pay from being counted against our 
military families who are trying to make ends meet while their loved 
ones are serving in places like Iraq or Afghanistan.
  We have fought to ensure that Food Stamps cannot be privatized--and 
we have taken an extra step in this Farm Bill to remove the stigma in 
the Food Stamp program.
  We are going to eliminate embarrassing coupons, transition everyone 
to EBT cards and change the name of the program to the Secure 
Supplemental Nutrition Access Program, or SSNAP.
  Now our working families will be able to go to the store, swipe their 
SSNAP cards and bring food home to their children with dignity.
  We also help support our food banks and soup kitchens by giving large 
increases to The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
  The ``TEE-FAP'' not only serves our homeless, but provides life-
saving assistance to our families after natural disasters, like 
Hurricane Katrina.
  Simply put, this Farm Bill strengthens our Nutrition safety net like 
no other firm bill has ever done before!
  This farm bill is also historic in its commitment to diversity in 
Agriculture.
  This bill increases agriculture opportunities for underserved 
communities such as African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and 
Asian-Pacific Islanders.
  We give $150 million dollars in mandatory funding for outreach to 
small and socially disadvantaged farmers.
  This bill also requires an annual report to Congress to see if our 
outreach to minority farmers is working.
  The Farm Bill also creates an Advisory Board to deal with civil 
rights violations.
  We require that 10 percent of conservation funding go to our small 
and disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
  The Farm Bill also creates new programs and increases funding for 
minority serving institutions and tribal colleges.
  In addition--we have preserved the Davis-Bacon provision to ensure 
workers in rural America earn a decent wage.
  We have worked hard to create a Reform Farm Bill that includes all of 
us--farmers, working families, minorities, urban communities, rural 
America.
  This bill is a good bill that will ensure that all Americans get a 
fair shot.
  It makes a historic investment in nutrition and increases 
opportunities for traditionally underserved communities. I urge my 
colleagues to support this vital legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a new member of the committee 
who has distinguished himself.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the ranking member.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in disappointment. Disappointment, 
because only 6 months ago I sat in this chair to be sworn into this 
body, and I listened to our Speaker sit up at that podium and say this 
body was going to talk about partnership, not partisanship.
  When I went onto the Agriculture Committee, I thought I found that 
partnership. For 6 months, we worked in a bipartisan manner, and I will 
tell you, I was proud of the fact to work with my colleagues, my 
colleagues like Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza. We worked together in a 
bipartisan fashion on bills such as this farm bill. We even looked to 
the 21st century and putting in specialty crops. We have done 
tremendous items when it comes to this farm bill.
  But I will tell you that that was all taken away this week. That all 
changed when we now decide to raise taxes, $4 billion. Instead of 
looking for the future, instead of thinking of our children, who are 
going to compete for the first time since the 1860s, to have economies 
that are going to compete in America, to be as large as or even larger 
when you talk about China and India, now we are going to take away 
jobs. That is not partnership. That is partisanship.
  And it is not like we bring up a farm bill every year, or we even 
bring it up every 2 years. We only talk about a farm bill twice every 
decade. We are missing an opportunity. We are missing a very big 
opportunity.
  That disappointment, when I think back 6 months ago when I listened 
to our Speaker say that, I listened earlier tonight to our debate when 
we had our chairman from the Ways and Means Committee down here talking 
about why he wanted to raise taxes. And I listened earlier this week 
when we had appropriation bills, and you wonder where does the money 
go? We build monuments to ourselves, because people think they have 
served in this body long enough that they should spend $2 million 
building their own libraries. That is not what the American people are 
asking for. That is not what the American people are looking for.
  I guess I when I think back 6 months ago, the Speaker should have 
looked at a quote from Dwight Eisenhower, when Dwight Eisenhower said, 
``You don't lead by hitting people over the head. That is assault, not 
leadership.''
  Let's send this bill back and have real leadership, and go back to 
the bipartisanship that the Agriculture Committee has experienced for 
the last decades, because there is only two chances we have for it for 
the next decade.
  Madam Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield for purposes of a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cardoza), the subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee of Horticulture 
and Organic Agriculture, one of our outstanding Members, who has done a 
great job.
  (Mr. CARDOZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to stand with you, on the House floor, at 
this historic moment in the development of U.S. farm and food policy.
  For the first time in the history of the farm bill, this year our 
farm policies will put fruit and vegetable growers on an equal playing 
field with commodity farmers. Fruits and vegetables are a growing and 
important component of American agricultural output.
  In 2006, U.S. production of specialty crops--fruits, vegetables, tree 
nuts, dried fruits and nursery crops--accounted for $53 billion, or 44 
percent of total U.S. crop receipts.
  The fruit and vegetable industry benefits from marketing, research, 
and educational programs, rather than traditional crop subsidies, to 
manage the challenges of increased global trade and foreign 
competition. These challenges include increasing domestic consumption, 
reviving export growth, aggressively managing food safety, and 
mitigating pest and disease problems.
  The 2007 Farm Bill addresses these challenges by providing $365 
million in new mandatory funding for the specialty crop block grant 
program. Block grants are vital for ensuring that solutions to these 
myriad challenges are flexible and locally driven.
  This bill also responds to the pest and disease management needs of 
the specialty crop industry by establishing a comprehensive early pest 
detection and surveillance program. The bill provides $200 million in 
mandatory funding for this new program to work in cooperation with 
State departments of Agriculture.
  The needs of America's nurseries are addressed by directing USDA to 
collaborate with nursery industry organizations as it develops, tests, 
and disseminates new systems of nursery pest and disease management.
  It also establishes within USDA a program for a National clean plant 
network. This network will provide a sustainable source of pest and 
disease free horticulture stocks.


                          Organic Agriculture

  This bill responds to the preferences of consumers across the United 
States by making an unprecedented investment in organic agriculture. 
Organic foods are the fastest growing sector of U.S. retail food 
sales--growing at approximately 20 percent annually over the past 
decade.
  In 2006 organic retail sales reached almost 3 percent of the entire 
United States food and beverage market. The 2007 Farm Bill recognizes 
growth in the organic food sector by expanding the assistance available 
to producers converting from conventional agriculture to organic 
production.
  To help with the transition the 2007 Farm bill provides $22 million 
in mandatory funding for the National Organic Certification Cost Share 
program.
  Organic farmers need reliable market information to assist them in 
production and marketing decisions.
  This bill does that by providing $3 million in mandatory funding for 
data collection on price, production volume, and other organic market 
characteristics. Most data currently collected by USDA is of little 
relevance to organic producers because it is collected without regard 
to the method of growing.
  The historic recognition of the horticulture and organic industries 
in the 2007 Farm Bill is an important accomplishment and sets American 
farm policy in a new direction for the 21st Century.

[[Page H8695]]

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), one of our great committee 
members and a great friend of mine.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Chairman, we are at an extraordinarily 
important moment. The people of America are watching us all across this 
country.
  The U.S. agricultural community and industry employs over 20 percent 
of our entire workforce and accounts for $3.5 trillion every year in 
our economy. And it is just somewhat baffling to me as we look, and we 
have worked together in the committee to get many competing forces 
together, that the gentleman and gentlewomen on the other side of the 
aisle would turn their backs on the American people and all the work 
that we did together and in bringing these competing forces together, 
whether it was black farmers or our Traditionally Black Colleges, or 
food stamp recipients, all with compelling needs, country of origin 
labeling, on a whimsical excuse, because we had to balance and score 
this at a time so that we would have pay-as-you-go so we wouldn't put 
it on the backs of our children and grandchildren to pay for this farm 
bill; went to Ways and Means and asked them to find a way to get us $4 
billion, and they went and got a way that was first presented by 
President Bush.
  President Bush said, let us close this loophole on foreign companies 
that are using what is known as earning strippings to stop paying taxes 
like every other American business. When President Bush said this just 
6 months ago, there was no hue and cry about a tax increase.
  There is no tax increase on this. This is a good bill. Let's pass it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say to 
the gentleman from Georgia that no one on this side of the aisle is 
turning their back on anybody. We are simply recognizing that 
increasing taxes in order to pay for what is in this farm bill is the 
wrong thing to do. To set businesses who have invested in this country 
and the American workers whose jobs depend on them against that is 
very, very wrong, and I would suggest to the gentleman that everyone I 
have talked to has called this a tax increase.
  Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a distinguished member of the committee.
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chairman, after months of bipartisan work in the 
House Agriculture Committee on a farm bill that meets the needs of 
American farmers without raising taxes, House leadership is inserting a 
600 percent tax increase on U.S. subsidiary manufacturers in the 2007 
farm bill. Democrats want to slap manufacturers, who employ 5.1 million 
American workers and pay $325 billion in wages, with a massive tax 
hike.
  As representative of a State and a district where the agricultural 
and manufacturing industries account for a larger share of employment 
on average than in the rest of the Nation, this is a double slap in the 
face.
  Many are not aware that Michigan, the auto capital of the world, is 
second in the Nation in agricultural diversity. Not only do I feel like 
the months I spent canvassing my district meeting with farmers and 
members of the agricultural community were for naught, I am also deeply 
worried about the impact of this proposed tax hike on south central 
Michigan.

                              {time}  2045

  In the Wolverine State, U.S. subsidiaries play a vital role in 
supporting jobs and employing 201,000 Michiganers.
  I just inquire of the other side: Why are we moving away from 
policies that encourage job development and investment? And what is a 
tax increase on manufacturers even doing in the farm bill?
  The Ag Committee put aside partisan differences and worked together 
on a bill that meets the needs of American farmers without raising 
taxes. The House should be voting on that bill, crafted in a bipartisan 
manner, that meets those needs without foisting this on the public.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Chairman, I thank Mr. Goodlatte for all 
of his time and hard work on this legislation, as well as the members 
of the committee who traveled to Washington State for a farm bill 
listening session last year.
  I rise today to highlight the need for a strong farm policy that will 
ensure the success of farmers in eastern Washington and across the 
Nation. Agriculture is the number one employer in Washington State, and 
in eastern Washington, a $1.1 billion industry.
  I support a farm bill that makes a strong commitment to specialty 
crops by investing in nutrition, research, pest management, and trade 
promotion programs.
  Whitman County is the leading producer of wheat and barley in the 
United States. The 2002 farm bill changed how marketing loan rates were 
calculated for wheat, and as a result, our wheat growers have been left 
out of the intended safety net. Although I believe to ensure fairness 
we should calculate counter-cyclical payments by class of wheat, I am 
encouraged that growers will have the option to choose a revenue-based 
payment.
  I am disappointed dried peas and lentils were not placed on equal 
ground, but we can work on that later. I am committed to working for 
policies that will help our farmers and ranchers compete. However, I am 
disappointed that this bill will raise taxes on companies.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King), a member of the committee whose work we appreciate.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  I said earlier there were five reasons to vote against this bill. I 
just sat down and wrote a list. Now there are seven. Some of them have 
been added to it since it passed the committee. We are facing a tax 
increase, a huge tax increase. That is something that a lot of us can't 
cross.
  The abrogation of treaties. When you think about the implications not 
just of companies doing business in the United States but the reaction 
when the retribution comes from foreign countries when they start to 
change their trade agreements and treaties with us. That is going to 
mean it is going to be nearly impossible for us to negotiate bilateral 
trade agreements, WTO trade agreements; and that draws a bright line 
against trade.
  There is Davis-Bacon wage scale in this bill. I will make the 
prediction that the 5th Congressional District of Iowa will remain the 
number one renewable fuels congressional district in America. Last year 
we put over a billion dollars of private capital into that, and we did 
so without the Davis-Bacon wage scale. We did it with merit shop wages. 
We built good plants, state of the art, and developed the technology. 
We are number one in biodiesel in my district. We will be number one in 
ethanol by the end of this season. We will stay there because they are 
not going to use this component because they will not be able to afford 
it. It is a 20 percent increase in cost. Where you could build five 
plants before, now you can only build four. We have a 46 percent 
increase in Food Stamps under the argument of food insecurity, but yet 
no one was going without food. They just thought some future meal they 
might have to worry about. So 46 percent increase in food stamps.
  The Pickford v. Glickman that was mentioned by the gentleman from 
Georgia, there were black farmers that were discriminated against. And 
some were. But a billion dollars was paid out to some of them. And $100 
million was spent in administration of Pickford, and I looked into 
that. What we have are 18,000 black farmers in America, 96,000 
claimants and a future liability to this bill of $3 billion in the 
Pickford piece. I know it is not all authorized, I know we have not 
found all of the money, but you open the door to that.
  I will vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the distinguished ranking member 
on the House appropriations agriculture subcommittee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to commend the members of the Ag Committee on a

[[Page H8696]]

bill that is well put together in some parts. As the chairman knows, he 
has been very generous with his time, talking to me about the cotton 
section, the peanut section, and fruits and vegetables. I think there 
was a lot of good bipartisan support. I commend the committee for that.
  Unfortunately, so much of this bill is not direct agriculture. So 
much of this bill, 60 to 70 percent, and this is true with all farm 
bills, it is the entitlement section, the school nutrition programs, 
there are a number of problems I have with that.
  Number one, this tax increase is to support an increase in the 
entitlement section. It doesn't go directly to farmers or help the dirt 
farmer. It is not intended for that.
  I have problems with the tax increase, and I do think it should have 
been gone through the Ways and Means Committee where it could have been 
thoroughly vetted and people could have decided what does this mean, 
because the truth of the matter is there are question marks on both 
sides.
  The second thing, in agriculture appropriations we have had lots of 
hearings on the Indiana privatization of food stamps. I think it is a 
great program. I think reducing the government bureaucracy so that you 
can get more money to the people who need the food stamps, I think that 
is a good fundamental idea. I think it is one that President Clinton 
would have appreciated. It is searching for the third way. Not always a 
Democrat or Republican solution is adequate; you have to come up with 
something else. This is a hybrid program. This is a privatization 
program, and I know that is a bad thing for many on the fringe left, 
but I think most of us in the ag community will agree that it is a good 
thing. And yet this bill stops that.
  The third thing is the special-interest payoff to the unions. Can you 
imagine, here we are at an energy crisis time. It is $3.05 if you shop 
all over town to find the bargain, and we are going to increase the 
cost of producing ethanol. We are going to say if you build an ethanol 
plant, you have to use the highly inflated union prevailing wages. It 
is a special payoff to the unions. We should not increase the price of 
producing energy during a fuel crunch. It is that simple. This bill 
does that.
  Finally, one of the things that we all do, Republicans and Democrats, 
we want to balance the budget. We want to cut out the waste, as long as 
it is done in a different district than ours.
  Now, the farm service agencies, there are too many of them. There are 
58 that don't even have staff. This bill prevents them from being 
closed. We need to close some of the farm service agencies. Because of 
technological changes, we can do that without hurting the farmers, and 
yet this bill will prevent that from happening. One thing we are all 
hypocrites on is, hey, let's balance the budget; but, oh, not here 
where we have an opportunity to balance the budget. I think that is 
something that is ill conceived. I know there is bipartisan resistance 
on that, and it is very difficult for all of us.
  I have four farm service agencies in my district that are being 
closed; and I tell you, it is tough. I hate to see any of them closed, 
but I realize in the big picture if you want to save money for the 
farmers for other programs, sometimes you have to make these decisions.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just say, Madam Chairman, that we reach this point in a 
process that has been going on for about 2 years. It spanned both my 
chairmanship and the current chairman's chairmanship. It has 
encompassed a great deal of effort to write a bipartisan farm bill. We 
have listened to hundreds of farmers. We have received input from 
thousands of farmers and ranchers and others interested in this 
legislation.
  We address the reform that has been requested in a farm bill. We have 
addressed the concerns about more funding for fruits and vegetables for 
nutrition and conservation and renewable fuels. And then to have this 
tax increase injected into this process after the bill has left the 
committee is why you have heard every single Member on this side of the 
aisle speak about how they feel betrayed by this process. It is 
unfortunate for us, but it is also unfortunate for this farm bill 
because what happens when it leaves the House, if it passes at all, 
will be very different than if it passed leaving this House with a 
veto-proof majority. That opportunity has been lost.
  I would say to those on the other side of the aisle we can fix that 
if we would simply slow down and take a look at the appropriate way to 
pay for the additional funding that is due this committee because we 
took a $60 billion cut in the budget. The way to do that is to vote for 
the motion to recommit that we will offer later on that will say you 
can have this farm bill that we have all praised and send it back to 
the committee to look for an appropriate way to do this without pitting 
American agriculture against American industry by having a tax increase 
imposed to pay for the things that are in this bill.
  That's the appropriate way to proceed here. That would restore the 
bipartisanship that is needed in this process, and that would restore a 
good future for this farm bill, which is very much endangered because 
of the injection of this partisan tax increase that has been laid at 
our doorstep, the most bipartisan committee in the House of 
Representatives that has worked so hard and so long. And to be faced 
with this at the end is wrong. I do not support this legislation.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) we have 
enjoyed working with you and your Members, but I don't agree with you. 
I don't believe there is a tax increase in this bill. I have looked at 
it. I am a CPA, and I think you can say it either way, but I don't 
believe it is a tax increase.
  The $60 billion did come out of baseline not because anybody cut it, 
but because the program worked the way it is supposed to. Prices are up 
and spending went down. We are missing the money, but it wasn't because 
anybody cut it.
  We have a good bill, and I encourage all Members to support it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007. I'd also like to 
thank the members of the Agriculture Committee for their commitment to 
this effort which has yielded a farm bill that is a victory for all 
Americans.
  This bipartisan agreement provides a strong safety net for not only 
our Nation's family farmers and small and disadvantaged farmers, but 
also for millions of American citizens who live below the poverty line 
and are dependents on Federal nutrition assistance.
  Committee members worked diligently, day and night for weeks, to 
ensure that funding levels and payment limitations were fair, 
equitable, and available to farmers. It ensures a flexible, affordable 
and top-quality food supply for consumers while strengthening America's 
food safety and security.
  The farm bill provides a 5-year reauthorization of the farm, rural 
development, conservation, and nutrition programs administered by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA. The 2007 farm bill is fiscally 
responsible, fully compliant with the PAYGO rules, while still 
providing a strong safety net for America's farmers and ranchers. It 
makes vital investments in nutrition, conservation, and renewable 
energy. This bill will help producers of all commodities stay on the 
land that they hold and love, so that they can continue with their 
livelihood, while also conserving natural resources for future 
generations.
  The bill before us today also addresses many of the needs of those in 
southwest and middle Georgia, Georgia's 2nd Congressional District, 
which I represent, in terms of protecting our Nation's farmers, 
conserving our natural resources, and feeding the hungry.
  In addition, the bill will provide better balances in support 
programs between all types of crops. The bill's reforms further 
encourage farmers to plant for the market, and not for the benefit of 
government programs. It also provides a sharp increase in funding for 
fruit and vegetable and other specialty crops, mandates implementation 
of country of origin labeling, and increases assistance to small and 
disadvantaged farmers significantly, including important new language 
with respect to the Pigford case. In addition, the bill increases 
funding for school lunch and other nutritional programs, and provides 
for new and extended conservation, research, trade promotion, and rural 
development programs.
  This bill makes much needed strides in reforming the nutrition title 
to better help Americans adequately cover food costs and sustain 
themselves for the entire month. It increases the minimum benefit for 
food stamp recipients, which is especially important for senior 
citizens in need. It also helps feed our military families by excluding 
special combat pay as

[[Page H8697]]

income when qualifying for food assistance programs.
  Finally, I am particularly pleased that the bill proposes and 
improves the quality of life of the people living in our rural 
communities by renewing successful programs that provide critical 
healthcare, emergency and communications needs to underserved areas. It 
creates a new grant program to assist rural health facilities, improves 
access to broadband telecommunications services in rural areas with a 
greater focus on the rural communities of greatest need, and supports 
critical infrastructure programs for rural cities and town.
  Today, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ``Protect 
our Farmers.'' They protect us by satisfying our most basic needs--
food, fiber, and fuel. Let us pass this Farm bill today for our farmers 
across this great Nation who desperately need this support, so that 
they are able to continue producing a safe and reliable food source.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill.
  Mr. SHULER. Madam Chairman, this bill includes important reforms that 
will help conservation efforts by private forest landowners. Today I 
offer an amendment to help out a little more.
  Over 260 million acres of forest lands are in the hands of families 
and individuals. At least 75 million acres of forests are part of 
farms. Forests provide habitats for wildlife, a source for clean water, 
and places to hunt, fish, hike and enjoy other recreational activities.
  But many of our privately owned forest lands are threatened by 
insects or diseases, and these threats are real. Most of the insects or 
diseases are non-native and invasive, making them difficult to contain.
  In my district, private landowners expect to lose all of their 
hemlocks from the attack of the hemlock wooly adelgid. This loss would 
permanently alter the diversity and unique forest environment in our 
region.
  Madam Chairman, this bill provides emergency restoration funding for 
private forest lands that experience a loss or damage from natural 
disaster. My amendment would take this one step further and allow the 
emergency restoration funds to be used for treating private forest 
lands under imminent threat of attack by insect and disease.
  In the case of insect or disease, we must stop their invasion before 
they create the disaster. Preventing the losses will save money and 
save our forests. Prevention is less expensive than restoration.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the members of the committee for their work 
on this bill to support healthy forests, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the Shuler amendment.
  Mr. HARE. Madam Chairman, on behalf of Illinois agriculture, I rise 
in strong support of the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act.
  This bill maintains a viable safety net for our farmers. Since my 
congressional district receives the second most crop payments of all 
the freshmen in Congress, a strong subsidy program is critical for 
farmers in the 17th Illinois Congressional District.
  Additionally, the bill encourages biofuel research and production, 
which are vitally important to my congressional district and the energy 
security of our Nation.
  The 2007 Farm bill also supports rural America through programs that 
provide healthcare, emergency communications, and broadband 
telecommunications services to rural areas.
  Before the bill passed out of committee, I joined with many of my 
colleagues to ensure it funded nutrition programs so that Americans 
continue to have access to a high quality and inexpensive food supply.
  In response, the bill increases the minimum benefit for the Food 
Stamp Program for the first time in more than 30 years.
  For the safety and security of our food and the future of U.S. 
agriculture, I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 
2419.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, our Nation's food inspection system is a 
critical safeguard in guaranteeing the health and welfare of all 
Americans. However, the federal protections that have existed for over 
40 years are now threatened by a provision in the Farm bill that would 
allow meat and poultry inspected by state inspectors to be sold across 
state lines.
  The Nation's food inspection system has served our Nation well by 
providing clear guidelines and a network of dedicated professional 
Federal inspectors. Its roots go back to the early 1900s, where a 
Federal inspection system became one of the landmark legislative 
accomplishments of President Theodore Roosevelt. While occasional 
problems have developed, on the whole, our national meat and poultry 
inspection system has been an unqualified success, with minimal 
incidents of food borne illnesses due to poor practices, handling or 
hygiene.
  So why would we change a system that is so successful? It is my 
understanding that this change is being proposed to encourage the 
growth of small meat processing facilities as well as create new 
markets for state-inspected meat. While more competition and building 
new markets are laudable goals, they need not come at the expense of 
food safety or result in the dismantlement of the federal inspection 
system. No one has made a compelling case that the federal inspection 
system has truly hindered competition or market development. Thousands 
of small plants do well under the current inspection regIme.
  However, in making this change, we are opening the door to problems 
that could multiply the exposure of consumers to food borne illnesses 
and food poisoning. The record of plants subject to state inspection is 
troubling. The USDA IG has repeatedly found that state inspection 
regimes often do not meet basic requirements for sanitation or 
cleanliness.
  Despite this, language was added to the Farm bill to roll back these 
protections. A letter to Congress from a coalition of groups promoting 
food safety pointed out that the provision would:

       Eliminate the 40 year old protection in the federal meat 
     and poultry inspection acts that prohibit shipping state 
     inspected meat across state lines.
       Make 80% of all federally inspected plants eligible to 
     leave federal inspection in favor of state programs which 
     supporters of the bill insist are more understanding of 
     company problems.
       Not allow states to impose additional or higher food safety 
     standards.
       Ignore the inability of states to implement recalls of 
     adulterated meat and poultry that have crossed state lines.

  The potential for the spread of food-borne illnesses across the 
country will only increase if we are to allow this provision to remain 
in the legislation. I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure that 
this troubling provision be dropped when the conference to the Farm 
bill is convened. Americans deserve the piece of mind that comes with 
the knowledge that the next meal they consume will not make them sick 
nor cause them harm.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I'd like to thank Representative 
Alcee Hastings for bringing together, in his amendment, two important 
pieces of legislation for research funding and protection of habitat 
for pollinators--the bees, birds, bats and other animals and insects 
that help sustain more than two-thirds of the world's crop species. 
Pollinators are responsible for one out of every three mouthfuls of 
food eaten.
  Despite the critical role that pollinators play for our food supply 
and ecosystem health, we are seeing disruptions of localized 
pollination systems and declines of certain species of pollinators on 
every continent except Antarctica. Populations of a variety of 
pollinator species have been declining in recent years due to loss of 
habitat, improper use of pesticides and herbicides, replacement of 
native plant species with non-native or engineered plants, and the 
introduction of non-native, invasive species, either by accident or 
through farming practices.
  I'm pleased to see that this amendment places a greater emphasis in 
existing USDA conservation programs on habitat and other pollinator-
beneficial best management practices to protect and enhance native and 
managed pollinators, which was the key component of H.R. 2913, which I 
introduced this Congress.
  In addition, the amendment provides research funding to address 
Colony Collapse Disorder in honey bees places, an issue championed by 
my friend Mr. Hastings and his bill, H.R. 1709.
  This amendment will help keep pollinator populations healthy and 
improve the viability of our food supply and our environment. I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, this is an unfortunate day. 
Today, here on the floor of the House of Representatives, we are 
witnessing a blatant disregard for sound policy, fiscal restraint, and 
due process by the Majority Leadership. The Farm Bill that we are 
debating today is not the bill that was reported out of the Committee 
on Agriculture. It is a product of a late night raid by Leadership on 
the rules process to insert yet another tax increase.
  Farm programs have always had their champions and their detractors, 
but in the 22 years that I have served in this body, it has never been 
a partisan issue. I have voted in favor of almost every Farm Bill that 
has come before me, but I cannot vote for this one. I have consistently 
supported the hard working farmers and ranchers in my district, and I 
will continue to do so. But I cannot support this tax increase that has 
been added without debate, and without relevant committee input.
  Over the past year, I have had the chance to visit with producers 
from across my district. Practically every single one of them has told 
me that the Farm Bill we passed in 2002 has proven to be a sound safety 
net for their various enterprises. The bill that was reported out of 
the Agriculture Committee continued those proven principals. 
Unfortunately, this is not that bill.
  As ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am also 
concerned that

[[Page H8698]]

this bill, which has an entire title (Title 9) devoted to energy, was 
never seen by our committee. Beyond that, it seems that the left hand 
of our Majority in this body does not know what its right hand is 
doing. As the year began, I was a little surprised that the Majority 
seemed disinclined to work with me or other Members of the Minority in 
preparing energy legislation. But now I realize that they do not even 
consult with each other.
  Take a look at the energy provisions of the Farm Bill. They overlap 
and duplicate provisions in the legislation reported a few weeks ago by 
the Committee on Energy & Commerce.
  The Farm Bill has incentives for increased ethanol production; grants 
for consumer education on ethanol; a biomass fuel production section, 
etc.
  Meanwhile, the Energy & Commerce Committee has provisions to do these 
and similar things in its bill. Energy & Commerce has grants for 
cellulosic ethanol production, consumer education for flexible fuel 
vehicles, a study of ethanol blended gasoline, and others.
  If the Majority would like, I'll be happy to offer my services to 
help them sort out and reconcile these provisions among the two bills.
  Of course, if the Agriculture Committee's bill had been referred to 
the Energy and Commerce Committee as it should have been, we could have 
accomplished that reconciliation before the Farm Bill ever got to the 
floor, avoiding this confusion, conflict, and redundancy. That is why 
we have rules in this body on jurisdiction and that's why we should go 
back to following those rules.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, from the time I was young, I was taught 
that a farmer's livelihood depends on two things: the weather and the 
markets. While the government can't control the weather, federal Farm 
Bills provide an invaluable safety net, bringing a level of stability 
to commodity markets that helps farmers stay in business, make plans 
for the future, and continue to feed America and the world.
  The 2007 Farm Bill would ensure farmers have economic stability by 
continuing the direct payment program and by keeping in place a strong 
safety net that allows producers to recoup some of their losses when 
agricultural markets collapse. The bill would give farmers the option 
of participating in the counter-cyclical initiative that was created in 
2002 or in a new, revenue-driven program.
  At the same time, the legislation would make historic reforms by 
prohibiting those who earn more than $1 million in annual adjusted 
gross income from receiving federal agricultural subsidies, by closing 
loopholes that have allowed some people to avoid payment limits, and by 
re-balancing loan rates. These changes in current programs would free 
up additional revenue for the safety net and for the bill's investments 
in conservation, nutrition, rural development, and renewable energy.
  The Farm Bill would make conservation a top priority by increasing 
funding and access to conservation programs that preserve farmland, 
improve water quality and quantity, and enhance soil conservation, air 
quality, and wildlife habitat. Missouri is a very conservation friendly 
state, and the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve 
Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, among 
others, have allowed farmers to more easily address conservation 
problems and comply with expensive, but important, environmental 
regulations.
  By extending and improving the food stamp program and making a strong 
commitment to other nutrition initiatives, the 2007 Farm Bill would 
promote the health of the American people and help families in need. 
The measure would also renew our commitment to rural development, 
agricultural research, forestry and energy. Important to Missouri's 
corn and soybean producers, it would authorize $2 billion in loan 
guarantees for biorefineries to help finance the cost of developing and 
constructing renewable fuel facilities. In Saline County, I have 
witnessed the overwhelming success of Mid-Missouri Energy's ethanol 
production plant. I am hopeful this bill will foster similar success 
stories in Missouri and across our land.
  Also important to Missourians, the Farm Bill would continue price 
supports for dairy farmers and create programs for fruit producers. It 
would also require that all meat sold to American consumers have a 
country-of-origin label beginning in September 2008. The measure 
retains the current prohibition on creating a national animal 
identification to verify the animal's country-of-origin.
  I praise Chairman Collin Peterson and other members of the 
Agriculture Committee for producing a good bipartisan bill. I support 
it, urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it, and ask them to defeat 
any attempt to strip away the meaningful safety net included in this 
legislation.
  Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, this year's farm bill creates an education 
program to give college students an opportunity to participate in 
policy oriented internships to promote and further develop agricultural 
biofuels from biomass. I commend the Chairman for incorporating this 
program into the bill.
  The biofuel industry has experienced rapid growth in recent years. 
Global climate change, and an unstable foreign oil supply, requires the 
United States to develop alternative energies. To do this, the United 
States must create leaders in alternative energies. We must recruit the 
best and brightest across the Nation to participate in the program.
  My amendment makes the eligibility criteria fair and opens the door 
for more qualified students to apply.
  As currently written, the program reaches only five specific states. 
It is important that Congress does not shut out qualified universities 
and students.
  My amendment would expand the program to qualified universities that 
have fields of study related to the biomass and biofuel industry. 
Schools with programs in chemistry, environmental sciences, 
bioengineering, natural resources and public policy would be eligible 
to participate in the internship program.
  This amendment will not add any additional cost to the bill; it will 
only make the internship more competitive.
  Congress needs to provide all students who are studying relevant 
fields the opportunity to gain practical work experience and to 
contribute to America's move to greater energy security. As we continue 
toward that goal, this program will prove invaluable.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. WYNN. Madam Chairman, as Chairman of the Environmental and 
Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, I rise today in strong opposition to 
language contained in the report that accompanies the Farm Bill 
Extension Act of 2007 (H.R. 2419). The report references a ``sense of 
the committee'' amendment that farm animal manure should not be deemed 
a hazardous substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency 
Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). The Farm Bill 
Extension Act does not contain any legislative text discussing whether 
manure is a hazardous substance under these statutes.
  I am strongly opposed to this report language because it would exempt 
releases or threatened releases of hazardous components of manure from 
CERCLA and EPCRA.
  Large animal feeding operations can be significant sources of 
pollution. According to the EPA, animal farming operations generate 
approximately 500 million tons of waste each year, three times more raw 
waste than is generated yearly by people in the United States. This 
waste, which is usually untreated by operations, produces hazardous 
substances such as phosphorous, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide.
  Phosphorous has contaminated local drinking water supplies, requiring 
additional treatment and resulting in increased costs to ratepayers. 
The City of Waco Texas for example is spending more than $54 million 
for capital improvements to address taste and odor problems caused by 
excessive phosphorous released by cow waste.
  I also attach a letter from the Association of Metropolitan Water 
Agencies, dated July 23, 2007, that discusses the negative impact that 
such an exemption would have on the quality of our Nation's drinking 
water supplies.
  If hazardous substances from livestock waste are exempted from 
CERCLA, states and local governments would be denied the ability to 
protect their valuable water supplies and to recover costs associated 
with cleaning up these hazardous substances from drinking water 
sources.
  If hazardous substances from livestock waste are exempted from EPCRA, 
toxic release information would be withheld from communities and 
emergency responders. Many of the large feeding operations release 
large volumes of hazardous air pollutants, such as ammonia and hydrogen 
sulfide. A number of studies have determined health problems among 
animal feeding operation workers and residents who live near these 
operations, including bronchitis, asthma and antibiotic-resistent 
bacterial infections.
  This exemption is unwarranted because CERCLA already includes a 
specific exemption for the normal application of fertilizer. Only those 
livestock operators who excessively apply manure to the land to get rid 
of it, rather than use it to fertilize crops, have potential liability.
  We should not allow these large animal feeding operations to escape 
liability for causing pollution to our communities and pass the costs 
onto community water systems and rate payers.
  Livestock waste should not be exempt from the environmental 
protections that CERCLA and EPCRA provide.


[[Page H8699]]


                                                    Association of


                                  Metropolitan Water Agencies,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.
       Subject: Oppose CERCLA Animal Waste Exemption in Farm Bill.

       Dear Representatives: As the House of Representatives 
     prepares this week to consider legislation to reauthorize the 
     Farm Bill, we urge you to reject language that would exempt 
     components of animal waste from designation as a hazardous 
     substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Enactment 
     of such an exemption would bring about serious consequences 
     for the quality of America's drinking water supplies.
       During last week's markup of the legislation, the 
     Agriculture Committee adopted an amendment expressing the 
     ``sense of the committee that farm animal manure should not 
     be considered as hazardous substance'' under CERCLA. This 
     follows the introduction earlier this year of legislation in 
     the House and Senate that would specifically exempt animal 
     waste and its components from the law.
       As representatives of community drinking water systems, we 
     believe it is important to note that animal manure itself is 
     not currently considered a hazardous substance, pollutant or 
     contaminant under CERCLA. Moreover, the law already contains 
     an exemption for the normal application of fertilizer that 
     includes manure.
       However, phosphorus and other CERCLA-regulated hazardous 
     substances that are known to compromise the quality of 
     drinking water are commonly present in animal manure. If 
     Congress were to provide a blanket CERCLA exemption for 
     animal waste, consolidated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) 
     would be free to discharge manure containing such hazardous 
     substances into the environment without regard to its impact 
     or liability for its damages. As a result, the costs of 
     additional treatment to make water potable would be forced 
     upon community water systems and their ratepayers, unfairly 
     shifting the burden of cleanup away from polluters.
       Later this year, Congress will celebrate the 35th 
     anniversary of the Clean Water Act, landmark legislation 
     modeled on the belief that all Americans must share the 
     responsibility of maintaining the health of our nation's 
     water supply. Exempting CAFOs from their fair share of this 
     duty not only threatens to reverse the water quality gains 
     that have been realized over the recent decades, but would 
     also set a dangerous precedent encouraging other polluters to 
     seek waivers from our environmental laws.
       Again, we urge you to oppose a blanket exemption for animal 
     waste and its components from the important requirements of 
     CERCLA.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Diane VanDe Hei,
                                               Executive Director.

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.