Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 121 (Thursday, July 26, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 121 (Thursday, July 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8701-H8730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007--Continued

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in
part A of House Report 110-261, is adopted. The bill, as amended, shall
be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a subsequent edition of the
Congressional Record.)
The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be
in order except those printed in part B of the report and amendments en
bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 574.
Each further amendment printed in the report shall be considered only
in the order printed in the report; may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read; shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of
amendments printed in part B of the report not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc shall be considered read (except that modifications
shall be reported); shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member or their
designees; shall not be subject to amendment; and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
The original proponent of an amendment included in amendments en bloc
may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before
disposition of the amendments en bloc.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kind

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Kind:
[COMMODITY TITLE]
In section 1102, strike subsection (b) and insert the
following new subsection:
(b) Payment Rate.--
(1) 2008 crop year.--The payment rates used to make direct
payments with respect to covered commodities for the 2008
crop year are as follows:
(A) Wheat, $0.52 per bushel.
(B) Corn, $0.14 per bushel.
(C) Grain sorghum, $0.25 per bushel.
(D) Barley, $0.17 per bushel.
(E) Oats, $0.02 per bushel.
(F) Upland cotton, $0.05 per pound.
(G) Rice, $1.65 per hundredweight.
(H) Soybeans, $0.22 per bushel.
(I) Other oilseeds, $0.01 per pound.
(J) Peanuts, $25.20 per ton.
(2) 2009 crop year.--The payment rates used to make direct
payments with respect to covered commodities for the 2009
crop year are as follows:
(A) Wheat, $0.52 per bushel.
(B) Corn, $0.13 per bushel.
(C) Grain sorghum, $0.23 per bushel.
(D) Barley, $0.16 per bushel.
(E) Oats, $0.02 per bushel.
(F) Upland cotton, $0.04 per pound.
(G) Rice, $1.53 per hundredweight.
(H) Soybeans, $0.20 per bushel.
(I) Other oilseeds, $0.01 per pound.
(J) Peanuts, $23.40 per ton.
(3) 2010 crop year.--The payment rates used to make direct
payments with respect to covered commodities for the 2010
crop year are as follows:
(A) Wheat, $0.52 per bushel.
(B) Corn, $0.11 per bushel.
(C) Grain sorghum, $0.21 per bushel.
(D) Barley, $0.14 per bushel.
(E) Oats, $0.02 per bushel.
(F) Upland cotton, $0.04 per pound.
(G) Rice, $1.41 per hundredweight.
(H) Soybeans, $0.18 per bushel.
(I) Other oilseeds, $0.01 per pound.
(J) Peanuts, $21.60 per ton.
(4) 2011 crop year.--The payment rates used to make direct
payments with respect to covered commodities for the 2011
crop year are as follows:
(A) Wheat, $0.49 per bushel.
(B) Corn, $0.10 per bushel.
(C) Grain sorghum, $0.35 per bushel.
(D) Barley, $0.13 per bushel.
(E) Oats, $0.02 per bushel.
(F) Upland cotton, $0.04 per pound.
(G) Rice, $1.29 per hundredweight.
(H) Soybeans, $0.15 per bushel.
(I) Other oilseeds, $0.01 per pound.
(J) Peanuts, $19.80 per ton.
(5) 2012 crop year.--The payment rates used to make direct
payments with respect to covered commodities for the 2012
crop year are as follows:
(A) Wheat, $0.47 per bushel.
(B) Corn, $0.08 per bushel.
(C) Grain sorghum, $0.18 per bushel.
(D) Barley, $0.12 per bushel.
(E) Oats, $0.02 per bushel.
(F) Upland cotton, $0.03 per pound.
(G) Rice, $1.18 per hundredweight.
(H) Soybeans, $0.13 per bushel.
(I) Other oilseeds, $0.01 per pound.
(J) Peanuts, $18.00 per ton.
(6) Limited resource farmers.--Notwithstanding paragraphs
(2), (3), (4), and (5), the payment rates specified in
paragraph (1) shall be used for each of the 2008 through 2012
crop years in the case of a limited resource farmer, as
defined by the Secretary.
Section 1102 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Conservation Enhanced Payment Option.--
``(1) In general.--All producers on a farm that meet the
eligibility requirements of paragraph (2) may, in lieu of
direct payments otherwise provided in this section, make a
one time election to receive enhanced direct payments through
crop year 2012 in accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to obtain an enhanced
direct payment for a covered commodity for a crop year under
this subsection, the producers on a farm shall enter into a
contract with the secretary under which the producers of the
farm agree, for each crop year--

[[Page H8702]]

``(A) to forgo all counter-cyclical payments under this
subtitle and all marketing assistance loans and all loan
deficiency payments under subtitle B for the farm subject to
a contract under this subsection;
``(B) to carry out conservation practices on the farm that
are at least equivalent to the requirements for land enrolled
under the a conservation security contract entered into under
section 1238A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3838a); and
``(C) to meet such other requirements as are established by
the Secretary.
``(3) Amount.--The amount of an enhanced direct payment to
be paid to the producers on a farm for a covered commodity
for a crop year that enter into a contract with the secretary
under this subsection shall be equal to the product obtained
by multiplying--
``(A) the amount of the direct payment the producers on a
farm would otherwise be eligible to receive under subsection
(c); and
``(B) 110
``(4) One time enrollment.--Producers on a farm shall have
one period of time (as determined by the Secretary) in which
to enter into a contract for a conservation enhanced payment.
``(5) De minimis payments.--A payment under this section
that is less than $25.00 in amount shall not be tendered to a
producer on a farm''.
Section 1103 is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 1103. COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS.

Section 1103 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7913) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1103. COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS.

``(a) Payment Required.--The Secretary shall make counter-
cyclical payments to producers on farms for which payment
yields and base acres are established with respect to a
covered commodity, if the Secretary determines that the
national actual revenue per acre for the covered commodity
(except for other oilseeds) is less than the national target
revenue per acre for the covered commodity, as determined in
this section.
``(b) National Actual Revenue Per Acre.--For each covered
commodity (except for other oilseeds) for the applicable
year, the Secretary shall establish a national actual revenue
per acre by multiplying the national average yield for the
given year by the higher of:
``(1) the national average market price received by
producers during the 12-month marketing year established by
the Secretary; or
``(2) the loan rate.
``(c) National Target Revenue Per Acre.--The national
target revenue per acre shall be, on a per acre basis, as
follows:
``(1) Wheat, $140.42.
``(2) Corn, $344.12.
``(3) Grain Sorghum, $131.28.
``(4) Barley, $123.13.
``(5) Oats, $88.36.
``(6) Upland cotton, $516.86.
``(7) Rice, $548.06.
``(8) Soybeans, $219.58 .
``(9) Peanuts, $683.83.
``(d) National Payment Yield.--The national payment yield
shall be as follows:
``(1) Wheat, 36.1 bushels per acre.
``(2) Corn, 114.2 bushels per acre.
``(3) Grain Sorghum, 58.1 bushels per acre.
``(4) Barley, 48.7 bushels per acre.
``(5) Oats, 49.8 bushels per acre.
``(6) Upland cotton, 636 pounds per acre.
``(7) Rice, 51.24 hundredweight per acre.
``(8) Soybeans, 34.1 bushels per acre.
``(9) Peanuts, 1.495 tons per acre.
``(e) National Payment Rate.--The national payment rate
used to make counter-cyclical payments for a crop year shall
be the result of--
``(1) the difference between the national target revenue
per acre for the covered commodity and the national actual
revenue per acre for the covered commodity; divided by
``(2) the national payment yield for the covered commodity.
``(f) Payment Amount.--If counter-cyclical payments are
required to be paid for any of the 2008 through 2012 crop
years of a covered commodity, the amount of the counter-
cyclical payment to be paid to the producers on a farm for
that crop year for the covered commodity shall be equal to
the product of--
``(1) the national payment rate for the covered commodity;
``(2) the payment acres of the covered commodity on the
farm; and
``(3) the payment yield for counter-cyclical payments for
the covered commodity.
``(g) Time for Payments.--
``(1) General rule.--If the Secretary determines that
counter-cyclical payments are required to be made under this
section for the crop of a covered commodity, the Secretary
shall make the counter-cyclical payments for the crop as soon
as practicable after the end of the 12-month marketing year
for the covered commodity.
``(2) Availability of partial payments.--If, before the end
of the 12-month marketing year for a covered commodity, the
Secretary estimates that counter-cyclical payments will be
required for the crop of the covered commodity, the Secretary
shall give producers on a farm the option to receive partial
payments of the counter-cyclical payment projected to be made
for that crop of the covered commodity.
``(3) Time for partial payments.--When the Secretary makes
partial payments available under paragraph (2) for a covered
commodity--
``(A) the first partial payment for the crop year shall be
made not earlier than October 1, and, to the maximum extent
practicable, not later than October 31, of the calendar year
in which the crop of the covered commodity is harvested;
``(B) the second partial payment shall be made not earlier
than February 1 of the next calendar year; and
``(C) the final partial payment shall be made as soon as
practicable after the end of the 12-month marketing year for
the covered commodity.
``(4) Amount of partial payments.--
``(A) First partial payment.--The first partial payment
under paragraph (3) to the producers on a farm may not exceed
35 percent of the projected counter-cyclical payment for the
covered commodity for the crop year, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(B) Second partial payment.--The second partial payment
under paragraph (3) for a covered commodity for a crop year
may not exceed the difference between--
``(i) 70 percent of the projected counter-cyclical payment
(including any revision thereof) for the crop of the covered
commodity; and
``(ii) the amount of the payment made under subparagraph
(A).
``(C) Final payment.--The final payment for the crop year
shall be equal to the difference between--
``(i) the actual counter-cyclical payment to be made to the
producers for the covered commodity for that crop year; and
``(ii) the amount of the partial payments made to the
producers on a farm under subparagraphs (A) and (B) for that
crop year.
``(5) Repayment.--Producers on a farm that receive a
partial payment under this subsection for a crop year shall
repay to the Secretary the amount, if any, by which the total
of the partial payments exceed the actual counter-cyclical
payment to be made for the covered commodity for that crop
year.
``(h) De Minimis Payments.--A payment under this section
that is less than $25.00 in amount shall not be tendered to a
producer on a farm.''.
In section 1105(a)(1)(D) insert ``, residential'' after
``commercial'' and after the period at the end insert the
following: ``In the case of a parcel of land that at anytime
subsequent to the enactment of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 is subdivided, transferred
to a new owner and used for the construction of a new
residence, the base acres for covered commodities for the
farm shall be eliminated, unless the owner of such residence
receives at least $10,000 of gross income from farming or
ranching and the owner of such residence receives gross
income from farming or ranching exceeding at least half of
their adjusted gross income.'' .
Section 1201(a)(1) is amended by striking ``For each of''
and all that follows through ``loan commodity, the'' and
inserting ``The''
Section 1201(b) is amended to read as follows:
(b) Eligible Production.--
(1) In general.--The producers on a farm shall be eligible
for a marketing assistance loan under subsection (a) for any
quantity of a loan commodity produced on the farm. In
addition, such producers must have beneficial interest, as
determined under paragraph (2), in the commodity at the time
the commodity is tendered as collateral for such loan.
(2) Beneficial interest.--In order to have beneficial
interest in a commodity, a producer shall:
(A) be the producer of the commodity;
(B) possess and maintain ownership and control of the
commodity;
(C) not have received any payment from any party with
respect to the commodity; and
(D) satisfy other criteria, as determined by the Secretary.
(3) Ineligible production.--A crop of a loan commodity
shall be ineligible for a marketing assistance loan if the
crop was produced on land of a farm that has been subject to
a land transaction covered under section 1101(c).
Section 1201(e) is amended to read as follows:
(e) Adjustments of Loans.--
(1) Adjustment authority.--The Secretary may make
appropriate adjustments in the loan rates for any commodity
for differences in grade, type, quality, location, and other
factors.
(2) Manner of adjustment.--The adjustments under the
authority of this section shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, be made in such manner that the national average
loan rate for the commodity will, on the basis of the
anticipated incidence of the factors, be equal to the level
of support determined as provided in this title.
(f) Handling and Storage Charges.--All payments for
storage, handling or other charges associated with a loan
commodity subject to a marketing assistance loan or loan
deficiency payment under this subtitle are the responsibility
of the producer and shall not be paid by the Secretary.
Section 1202 is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 1202. LOAN RATES FOR NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE
LOANS.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
loan rate for each crop of a loan commodity shall be equal to
the amount determined by multiplying:
(1) .85; and
(2) the average of the national average market price
received by producers during the five preceding marketing
years, excluding the highest and lowest prices determined

[[Page H8703]]

for such years, as determined by the Secretary.
(b) Loan Rates.--The loan rate determined under (a) shall
not exceed, in the case of--
(1) wheat, $2.58 per bushel;
(2) corn, $1.89 per bushel;
(3) grain sorghum, $1.89 per bushel;
(4) barley, $1.70 per bushel;
(5) oats, $1.21 per bushel;
(6) upland cotton, $0.5192 per pound;
(7) extra long staple cotton, $0.7965 per pound;
(8) rice, $6.50 per hundredweight;
(9) soybeans, $4.92 per bushel;
(10) other oilseeds, $0.087 per pound;
(11) graded wool, $1.00 per pound;
(12) nongraded wool, $0.40 per pound;
(13) mohair, $4.20 per pound;
(14) honey, $0.60 per pound;
(15) dry peas, $6.22 per hundredweight;
(16) lentils, $11.72 per hundredweight;
(17) small chickpeas, $7.43 per hundredweight; and
(18) peanuts, $350.00 per ton.
Section 1204(a) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7934) is amended to read as follows:
(a) General Rule.--
(1) Repayment of commodity loans.--The Secretary shall
permit the producers on a farm to repay a marketing
assistance loan under section 1201 for a loan commodity
(other than upland cotton, rice, extra long staple cotton,
confectionary and each other kind of sunflower seed (other
than oil sunflower seed)) at a rate that is the lesser of--
(A) the loan rate established for the commodity under
section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with
section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or
(B) a rate that the Secretary determines will--
(i) minimize potential loan forfeitures;
(ii) minimize the accumulation of stocks of the commodity
by the Federal Government;
(iii) minimize the cost incurred by the Federal Government
in storing the commodity;
(iv) allow the commodity produced in the United States to
be marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and
internationally; and
(v) minimize discrepancies in marketing loan benefits
across State boundaries and across county boundaries.
(2) Rate adjustments.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) and except as
provided in subsection (b), repayment rates established under
this section shall be adjusted by the Secretary no more than
once every month for all loan commodities.
(B) Monthly repayment rate.--In establishing the monthly
repayment rates with respect to wheat, corn, grain sorghum,
barley, oats and soybeans, the rates shall be established by
using the rates determined for five days in the previous
month as determined in regulations issued by the Secretary,
which shall--
(i) exclude the rates for days that represent the highest
and lowest rates for the 5 day period; and
(ii) use the average of the three remaining rates to
establish the monthly repayment rate.
(3) Date for determining repayment rate.--With respect to
the monthly repayment rates established under paragraph (2)
and subsection (b) and (c), the rate shall be--
(A) in the case of a producer who, as determined by the
Secretary, loses beneficial interest immediately upon
repayment of the loan, the monthly repayment rate determined
under paragraph (2) and subsection (b) and (c) that is in
effect on the date beneficial interest is lost; and
(B) in the case of other producers who did not lose
beneficial interest upon repayment of the loan, the repayment
rate in effect on the earlier of:
(i) the month in which the loan matures; or
(ii) the last month of the marketing year established by
the Secretary for the commodity.
(4) Repayment of confectionary and other kinds of sunflower
seeds loans.--The Secretary shall permit the producers on a
farm to repay a marketing assistance loan under section 1201
for confectionary and each other kind of sunflower seed
(other than oil sunflower seed) at a rate that is the lesser
of--
(A) the loan rate established for the commodity under
section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with
section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or
(B) the repayment rate established for oil sunflower seed.
(5) Quality grades for dry peas, lentils, and small
chickpeas.--The loan repayment rates for dry peas, lentils,
and small chickpeas shall be based on the quality grades for
the applicable commodity.
Section 1204(e) is amended to read as follows:
(e) Adjustment of Prevailing World Market Price for Upland
Cotton.--During the period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act through July 31, 2012, the prevailing
world market price for upland cotton (adjusted to United
States quality and location) established under subsection (d)
shall be further adjusted if--
(1) the adjusted prevailing world market price for upland
cotton is less than 115 percent of the loan rate for upland
cotton established under section 1202, as determined by the
Secretary; and
(2) the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for
the lowest-priced United States growth as quoted for Middling
(M) 1 3/32-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe
(referred to in this section as the ``Northern Europe
price'').
Section 1204 is amended by striking subsections (f) through
(h).
Section 1205(a) is amended by inserting after paragraph (1)
the following new paragraph (and redesignating succeeding
paragraphs accordingly):
(2) Beneficial interest.--At the time producers request
payments under this section, the producers must have
beneficial interest, as defined in section 1201(b)(2), in the
commodity for which such payment is requested.
Section 1205(c) is amended to read as follows:
(c) Payment Rate.--
(1) Loan commodities.--
(A) In general.--With respect to all loan commodities
except extra long staple cotton, the payment rate shall be
determined as of the day the producer loses beneficial
interest in the commodity.
(B) Formula.--The payment rate under subparagraph (A) shall
be the amount that equals the difference between--
(i) the loan rate established under section 1202 for the
loan commodity; and
(ii) the monthly repayment rate determined for the
commodity under section 1204.
(2) Unshorn pelts.---In the case of unshorn pelts, the
payment rate shall be the amount that equals the difference
between--
(A) the loan rate established under section 1202 for
ungraded wool: and
(B) the rate at which ungraded wool may be redeemed under
section 1204.
(3) Hay, silage, feed and similar uses.--
(A) In general.--In the case of a commodity that would
otherwise be eligible to be pledged as collateral for a
marketing assistance loan at the time of harvest of the
commodity, but cannot be pledged due to the normal commercial
state of the commodity, the payment rate shall be the average
of the monthly repayment rates established for the first
three months of the marketing year of the commodity, as
determined by the Secretary.
(B) Inclusions.--Commodities covered by subparagraph (A)
shall be determined by the Secretary, and shall include hay,
silage, cracked corn, and corn stored in a commingled manner
by feedlots.
In section 1206(d) strike ``A 2002 through 2007 crop of''
and inserting ``A crop of''.
In section 1207 strike subsection (b) and redesignate
subsection (c) as subsection (b).
Section 1208 of Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (7 U.S.C. 7938) is amended
(1) by striking the section;
(2) by redesignating section 1209 as section 1208;
(3) in section 1208 (as redesignated in paragraph (2)) (A)
in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``For each of the 2002
through 2007 crops of'' and inserting ``For each crop of''
(B) in subsection (b) by striking ``For each of the 2002
through 2007 crops of'' and inserting ``For each crop of'';
and (C) by striking subsection (d).
In subtitle C strike sections 1301, 1302, and 1303 and
insert the following:

SEC. 1301. SUGAR PROGRAM.

Section 156(j) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272(j)) is amended by striking
``2007'' and inserting ``2012''.

SEC. 1302. FLEXIBLE MARKETING ALLOTMENTS FOR SUGAR.

Section 359b(a)(1) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(a)(1)) is amended in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ``2007'' and inserting
``2012''.
Section 1409 is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 1409. FEDERAL DAIRY COMMISSION.

(a) Establishment.--The secretary of agriculture shall
establish a commission to be known as the ``federal dairy
commission'', in this section referred to as the
``commission'', which shall conduct a comprehensive review
and evaluation of--
(1) the current Federal and non-Federal milk marketing
order systems;
(2) the milk income loss contracting program;
(3) the forward contracting program;
(4) the 9.90 dairy price support system; and
(5) programs in the European Union and other major dairy
exporting countries that may have a trade distorting effect.
(b) Element of Review and Evaluation.--As part of the
review and evaluation under this section, the commission
shall evaluate how well the programs accomplish the following
goals, providing legislative and regulatory recommendations
for achieving these goals--
(1) ensuring the competitiveness of diary products;
(2) enhancing the competitiveness of American diary
products in world markets;
(3) increasing the responsiveness of dairy programs to
market forces;
(4) ensuring an adequate safety net for dairy farmers;
(5) streamlining, simplifying, and expediting the
administration of these programs; and
(6) continuing to serve the interest of the public, diary
processors, and diary farmers;
(7) operating in a manner to minimize costs to taxpayers;
(8) ensuring that we meet our trade obligations; and
(9) ensuring the safety of our dairy supply.

[[Page H8704]]

(c) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--The commission shall consist of 16
members and shall include the following representation:
(A) Geographical diversity.
(B) Diversity in size of operation.
(C) At least one State with a Federal marketing order.
(D) At least one State with a state marketing order.
(E) At least one State with no marketing order.
(F) At least two dairy producers.
(G) At least two dairy processors.
(H) At least one trade experts.
(I) At least one State official.
(J) At least one Federal official.
(K) At least one nongovernmental organization.
(L) At least one economist.
(M) At least one representative of a land grant university.
(2) Appointments.--Within 3 months of the date of
enactment, commission members shall be appointed as follows:
(A) Two members appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate, in consultation with the Chair and ranking member of
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives.
(B) Two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, in consultation with the Chair and ranking
member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry of the Senate.
(C) Fourteen members appointed by the Secretary of
Agriculture.
(3) Chair.--The commission shall elect one of its members
to serve as chairperson during the duration of the
commission's proceedings.
(4) Vacancy.--Any vacancy occurring before the termination
of the commission shall be filled in the same manner as the
original appointment.
(5) Compensation.--Members of the commission shall serve
without compensation, but shall be reimbursed by the
Secretary from existing budgetary resources for necessary and
reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of the duties
of the commission.
(d) Report.--Not later than three years after the date of
establishment of the commission, the commission shall submit
to Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture a report setting
forth the results of the review and evaluation conducted
under this section, including recommendations regarding
legislative and regulatory options for accomplishing the
goals under subsection (__). The report findings shall
reflect, to the greatest extent possible, a consensus opinion
of the commission members, but shall include majority and
minority findings and their supporters regarding those
matters for which consensus was not reached.
(e) Advisory Nature.--The commission is wholly advisory in
nature and bound by the requirements of the FACA.
(f) No Effect on Existing Programs.--The Secretary shall
not allow the existence of the commission to impede, delay,
or otherwise affect any regulatory decisionmaking.
(g) Administrative Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
administrative support to the commission, and expend such
funds as necessary from existing budget authority to carry
out this responsibility.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
(i) Termination.--The commission shall terminate 60 days
after submission of the report under subparagraph (D), during
which time it will remain available to answer question of
Congress and the Secretary regarding the report.
Strike sections 1503 and 1504 and insert the following:

SEC. 1503. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

Section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2)
and inserting the following:
``(1) Entity.--
``(A) In general.--the term `entity' means.--
``(i) an organization that (subject to the requirements of
this section and section 1001A) is eligible to receive a
payment under a provision of law referred to in subsection
(b) or (c);
``(ii) a corporation, joint stock company, association,
limited partnership, limited liability company, limited
liability partnership, charitable organization, estate,
irrevocable trust, a grantor of a revocable trust, or other
similar entity (as determined by the Secretary); and
``(iii) an organization that is participating in a farming
operation as a partner in a general partnership or as a
participant in a joint venture.
``(B) Exclusion.--Except in section 1001F, the term
`entity' does not include a general partnership or joint
venture.
``(C) Estates.--In defining the term entities as it will
apply to estates, the Secretary shall ensure that fair and
equitable treatment is given to estates and the beneficiaries
thereof.
``(D) Irrevocable trusts.--In defining the term entities as
it will apply to irrevocable trusts, the Secretary shall
ensure that irrevocable trusts are legitimate entities and
have not been created for the purpose of avoiding the payment
limitation.
``(2) Individual.--The term `individual' means--
``(A) a natural person, and any minor child of the natural
person (as determined by the Secretary), who, subject to the
requirements of this section and section 1001A, is eligible
to receive a payment under a provision of law referred to in
subsection (b), (c), or (d); and
``(B) a natural person participating in a farming operation
as a partner in a general partnership, a participant in a
joint venture, a grantor of a revocable trust, or a
participant in a similar entity (as determined by the
Secretary).
``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.''.
(2) by striking subsections (b) through (f) and inserting
the following:
``(b) Limitation on Direct Payments.--The total amount of
direct payments that an individual or entity may receive,
directly or indirectly, during any crop year under subtitle A
or C of title I of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7911 et seq.) for 1 or more covered
commodities or peanuts shall not exceed $20,000.
``(c) Limitation on Counter-Cyclical Payments.--The total
amount of counter-cyclical payments that an individual or
entity may receive, directly or indirectly, during any crop
year under subtitle A or C of title I of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7911 et seq.) for
1 or more covered commodities or peanuts shall not exceed
$30,000.
``(d) Limitations on Marketing Loan Gains, Loan Deficiency
Payments, and Commodity Certificate Transactions.--The total
amount of the following gains and payments that an individual
or entity may receive during any crop year may not exceed
$75,000.
``(1)(A) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a
marketing assistance loan for 1 or more loan commodities or
peanuts under subtitle B of title I of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) at a
lower level than the original loan rate established for the
loan commodity under that subtitle.
``(B) In the case of settlement of a marketing assistance
loan for 1 or more loan commodities under that subtitle by
forfeiture, the amount by which the loan amount exceeds the
repayment amount for the loan if the loan had been settled by
repayment instead of forfeiture.
``(2) Any loan deficiency payments received for 1 or more
loan commodities under that subtitle.
``(3) Any gain realized from the use of a commodity
certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation for 1
or more loan commodities, as determined by the Secretary,
including the use of a certificate for the settlement of a
marketing assistance loan made under that subtitle or section
1307 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 7957).
``(e) Payment to Individuals and Entities.--Notwithstanding
subsections (b) through (d), an individual or entity,
directly or indirectly through all ownership interests of the
individual or entity from all sources, may received payments
for a fiscal or corresponding crop year up to but not
exceeding twice the limitations established under subsections
(b) through (d).
``(f) Single Farming Operation.--Notwithstanding
subsections (b) through (d), subject to paragraph (2), an
individual or entity that participates only in a single
farming operation and receives, directly or indirectly, any
payment or gain covered by this section through the farming
operation, may receive payments for a fiscal or corresponding
crop year up to but not exceeding twice the limitations
established under subsections (b) through (d).
``(g) Spousal Equity.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (b), (c),
(d), (e) and (f) except as provided in paragraph (2), if an
individual and the spouse of the individual are covered by
paragraph (2) and receive, directly or indirectly, any
payment or gain covered by this section, the total amount of
payments or gains (as applicable) covered by this section
that the individual and spouse may jointly receive during any
crop year may not exceed an amount equal to twice the
applicable dollar amounts specified in subsections (b), (c),
and (d).
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Separate farming operations.--In the case of a
married couple in which each spouse, before the marriage, was
separately engaged in an unrelated farming operation, each
spouse shall be treated as a separate individual with respect
to a farming operation brought into the marriage by a spouse,
subject to the condition that the farming operation shall
remain a separate farming operation, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(B) Election to receive separate payments.--A married
couple may elect to receive payments separately in the name
of each spouse if the total amount of payments and benefits
described in subsections (b), (c), and (d) that the married
couple receives, directly or indirectly, does not exceed an
amount equal to twice the applicable dollar amounts specified
in those subsections.
``(h) Public Schools.--The provisions of this section that
limit payments to any individual or entity shall not be
applicable to land owned by a public school district or land
owned by a State that is used to maintain a public school.
``(i) Time Limits; Reliance.--Regulations of the Secretary
shall establish time limits for the various steps involved
with notice, hearing, decision, and the appeals procedure in
order to ensure expeditious handling and settlement of
payment limitation disputes.

[[Page H8705]]

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, actions taken by
an individual or other entity in good faith on action or
advice of an authorized representative of the Secretary may
be accepted as meeting the requirement under this section or
section 1001A, to the extent the Secretary deems it desirable
in order to provide fair and equitable treatment.''.

SEC. 1504. PAYMENTS LIMITED TO ACTIVE FARMERS.

Section 1001A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308-1) is amended--
(1) by striking the section designation and heading and all
that follows through the end of subsection (a) and inserting
the following:
``(a) Substantive Change.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of the application of
limitations under this section, the Secretary shall not
approve any change in a farming operation that otherwise
would increase the number of individuals or entities (as
defined in section 1001(a)) to which the limitations under
this section apply, unless the Secretary determines that the
change is bona fide and substantive.
``(2) Family members.--For the purpose of paragraph (1),
the addition of a family member (as defined in subsection
(b)(2)(A)) to a farming operation under the criteria
established under subsection (b)(3)(B) shall be considered to
be a bona fide and substantive change in the farming
operation.
``(3) Primary control.--To prevent a farm from reorganizing
in a manner that is inconsistent with the purposes of this
Act, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as the
Secretary determines to be necessary to simultaneously
attribute payments for a farming operation to more than one
individual or entity, including the individual or entity that
exercises primary control over the farming operation,
including to respond to --
``(A)(i) any instance in which ownership of a farming
operation is transferred to an individual or entity under an
arrangement that provides for the sale or exchange of any
asset or ownership interest in 1 or more entities at less
than fair market value; and
``(ii) the transferor is provided preferential rights to
repurchase the asset or interest at less than fair market
value; or
``(B) a sale or exchange of any asset or ownership interest
in 1 or more entities under an arrangement under which rights
to exercise control over the asset or interest are retained,
directly or indirectly, by the transferor.''
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive, directly or
indirectly, payments or benefits described as being subject
to limitation in subsection (b) or (c) of section 1001 with
respect to a particular farming operation, an individual or
entity (as defined in section 1001(a)) shall be actively
engaged in farming with respect to the farming operation, in
accordance with paragraphs (2), (3), and (4).'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) and
inserting the following:
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Active personal management.--The term `active
personal management' means with respect to an individual,
administrative duties carried out by the individual for a
farming operation--

``(I) that are personally provided by the individual on a
regular, substantial, and continuing basis; and
``(II) relating to the supervision and direction of--

``(aa) activities and labor involved in the farming
operation; and
``(bb) onsite services directly related and necessary to
the farming operation.
``(ii) Family member.--The term `family member', with
respect to an individual participating in a farming
operation, means an individual who is related to the
individual as a lineal ancestor, a lineal descendant, or a
sibling (including a spouse of such and individual).
``(B) Active engagement.--Except as provided in paragraph
(3), for purposes of paragraph (1), the following shall
apply:
``(i) An individual shall be considered to be actively
engaged in farming with respect to a farming operation if--

``(I) the individual makes a significant contribution, as
determined under subparagraph (E) (based on the total value
of the farming operation), to the farming operation of--

``(aa) capital, equipment, or land; and
``(bb) personal labor and active personal management;

``(II) the share of the individual of the profits or losses
from the farming operation is commensurate with the
contributions of the individual to the operation; and
``(III) a contribution of the individual is at risk.

``(ii) An entity shall be considered to be actively engaged
in farming with respect to a farming operation if--

``(I) the entity makes a significant contribution, as
determined under subparagraph (E) (based on the total value
of the farming operation), to the farming operation of
capital, equipment, or land;
``(II)(aa) the stockholders or members that collectively
own at least 51 percent of the combined beneficial interest
in the entity each make a significant contribution of
personal labor and active personal management to the
operation; or
``(bb) in the case of an entity in which all of the
beneficial interests are held by family members, any
stockholder or member (or household comprised of a
stockholder or member and the spouse of the stockholder or
member) who owns at least 10 percent of the beneficial
interest in the entity makes a significant contribution of
personal labor or active personal management; and
``(III) the entity meets the requirements of subclauses
(II) and (III) of clause (i).

``(C) Entities making significant contributions.--If a
general partnership, joint venture, or similar entity (as
determined by the Secretary) separately makes a significant
contribution (based on the total value of the farming
operation involved) of capital, equipment, or land, the
partners or members making a significant contribution of
personal labor or active personal management and meeting the
standards provided in subclauses (II) and (III) of
subparagraph (B)(i), shall be considered to be actively
engaged in farming with respect to the farming operation'';
and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Significant contribution of personal labor or active
personal management.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for purposes of
subparagraph (B), an individual shall be considered to be
providing, on behalf of the individual or an entity, a
significant contribution of personal labor or active personal
management, if the total contribution of personal labor and
active personal management is at least equal to the lesser
of--

``(I) 1,000 hours; and
``(II) a period of time equal to--

``(aa) 50 percent of the commensurate share of the total
number of hours of personal labor and active personal
management required to conduct the farming operation; or
``(bb) in the case of a stockholder or member (or household
comprised of a stockholder or member and the spouse of the
stockholder or member) that owns at least 10 percent of the
beneficial interest in an entity in which all of the
beneficial interests are held by family members, 50 percent
of the commensurate share of hours of the personal labor and
active personal management of all family members required to
conduct the farming operation.
``(ii) Minimum labor hours.--For the purpose of clause (i),
the minimum number of labor hours required to produce a
commodity shall be equal to the number of hours that would be
necessary to conduct a farming operation for the production
of each commodity that is comparable in size to the
commensurate share of an individual or entity in the farming
operation for the production of the commodity, based on the
minimum number of hours per acre required to produce the
commodity in the State in which the farming operation is
located, as determined by the Secretary.''
(C) in paragraph (3) by striking subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C) and inserting the following:
``(A) Landowners.--An individual or entity that is a
landowner contributing owned land, and that meets the
requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph
(2)(B)(i), if as determined by the Secretary--
``(i) the landowner share-rents the land at a rate that is
usual and customary; and
``(ii) the share received by the landowner is commensurate
with the share of the crop or income received as rent.
``(B) Family members.--With respect to a farming operation
conducted by individuals who are family members, or an entity
the majority of whose stockholders or members are family
members, an adult family member who makes a significant
contribution (based on the total value of the farming
operation) of active personal management or personal labor
and, with respect to such contribution, who meets the
requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph
(2)(B)(i).
``(C) Sharecroppers.--A sharecropper who makes a
significant contribution of personal labor to the farming
operation and, with respect to such contribution, who meets
the requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph
(2)(B)(i), and who was receiving payments from the landowner
as a sharecropper prior to the effective date of this Act.''
(D) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``persons'' and
inserting ``individuals and entities'';
(ii) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``persons'' and inserting ``individuals and entities''; and
(iii) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) Other individuals and entities.--Any other individual
or entity, or class of individuals or entities, that fails to
meet the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3), as
determined by the Secretary.''
(E) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(6) and (7), respectively;
(F) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) Personal labor and active personal management.--No
stockholder or member may provide personal labor or active
personal management to meet the requirements of this
subsection for individuals or entities that collectively
receive, directly or indirectly, an amount equal to more than
twice the applicable limits under subsections (b), (c), and
(d) of section 1001.''
(G) In paragraph (6) (as redesignated by subparagraph (e))
(i) in the first sentence--

(I) by striking ``A person'' and inserting ``An individual
or entity''; and

[[Page H8706]]

(II) by striking ``such person'' and inserting ``the
individual or entity''; and

(ii) by striking the second sentence; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Notification by Entities.--To facilitate the
administration of this section, each entity that receives
payments or benefits described as being subject to limitation
in subsection (b), (c), or (d) of section 1001 with respect
to a particular farming operation shall--
``(1) notify each individual or other entity that acquires
or holds a beneficial interest in the farming operation of
the requirements and limitations under this section; and
``(2) provide to the Secretary, at such times and in such
manner as the Secretary may require, the name and social
security number of each individual, or the name and taxpayer
identification number of each entity, that holds or acquires
such a beneficial interest.
``(4) Four levels of attribution for embedded entities.--
``(A) In general.--Attribution of payments made to legal
entities shall be traced through four levels of ownership in
entities.
``(B) First level.--Any payments made to a legal entity (a
first-tier entity) that is owned in whole or in part by a
person shall be attributed to the person in an amount that
represents the direct ownership in the first-tier entity by
the person.
``(C) Second level.--Any payments made to a first-tier
entity that is owned in whole or in part by another legal
entity (a second-tier entity) shall be attributed to the
second-tier entity in proportion to the second-tier entity's
ownership in the first-tier entity. If the second-tier entity
is owned in whole or in part by a person, the amount of the
payment made to the first-tier entity shall be attributed to
the person in the amount that represents the indirect
ownership in the first-tier entity by the person.
``(D) Third and fourth levels.--The Secretary shall
attribute payments at the third and fourth tiers of ownership
in the same manner as specified in subparagraph (C) unless
the fourth-tier of ownership is that of a fourth-tier entity
and not that of a person, in which case the Secretary shall
reduce the amount of the payment to be made to the first-tier
entity in the amount that represents the indirect ownership
in the first-tier entity by the fourth-tier entity.''.

SEC. 1505. SCHEMES OR DEVICES.

Section 1001B of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308-2) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``if'';
(2) in subsection (a) (as designated by paragraph (1)), by
striking ``person'' each place it appears and inserting
``individual or entity''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Fraud.--If fraud is committed by an individual or
entity in connection with a scheme or device to evade, or
that has the purpose of evading, section 1001, 1001A, or
1001C, the individual or entity shall be ineligible to
receive farm program payments described as being subject to
limitation in subsection (b), (c), or (d) of section 1001
for--
``(1) the crop year for which the scheme or device is
adopted; and
``(2) the succeeding 5 crop years.
``(c) Joint and Several Liability.--All individuals and
entities who participate in a scheme or device described in
subsection (a) or (b) shall be jointly and severally liable
for any and all overpayments resulting from the scheme or
device, and subject to program ineligibility resulting from
the scheme or device, regardless of whether a particular
individual or entity was or was not a payment recipient.
``(d) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may fully or
partially release an individual or entity from liability for
repayment of program proceeds under subsection (a)(2) if the
individual or entity cooperates with the Department of
Agriculture by disclosing a scheme or device to evade section
1001, 1001A, or 1001C or any other provision of law
administered by the Secretary that imposes a payment
limitation. The decision of the Secretary under this
subsection is vested in the sole discretion of the
Secretary.''.

SEC. 1506. FOREIGN INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES MADE INELIGIBLE
FOR PROGRAM BENEFITS.

Section 1001C of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308-3) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``PERSONS'' and
inserting ``INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``person'' each place it
appears and inserting ``individual''; and
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Corporation or
Other''; and
(B) by striking ``a corporation or other entity'' and
inserting ``an entity''.

SEC. 1507. ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME LIMITATION.

(a) Extension of Adjusted Gross Income Limitation.--
(b) Modification of Limitation.--Section 1001D(b) of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(1) Caps.--
``(A) Upper limit.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an individual or entity shall not be eligible to receive
any benefit described in paragraph (2) during a crop year and
no benefits shall be provided on land owned by an individual
or entity if the average adjusted gross income of the entity
or individual combined with the income of the individual"s
spouse exceeds $250,000.
``(B) Producer exemption.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, an individual or entity shall not be
eligible to receive any benefit described in paragraph (2)
and no benefits shall be provided on land owned by an
individual or entity during a crop year if the average
adjusted gross income of the entity or individual combined
with the income of the individual's spouse exceeds $125,000,
unless not less than 66.66 percent of the average adjusted
gross income of the entity or individual combined with the
income of the individuals spouse is derived from farming,
ranching, or forestry operations, as determined by the
Secretary.'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C); and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Income derived from farming, ranching or forestry
operations.--In determining what portion of the average
adjusted gross income of an individual or entity is derived
from farming, ranching, or forestry operations, the Secretary
shall include income derived from the following:
``(A) The production of crops, livestock, or unfinished raw
forestry products.
``(B) The sale, including the sale of easements and
development rights, of farm, ranch, or forestry land or water
rights.
``(C) The sale, but not as a dealer, of equipment purchased
to conduct farm, ranch, or forestry operations when the
equipment is otherwise subject to depreciation expense.
``(D) The rental of land used for farming, ranching, or
forestry operations.
``(E) The provision of production inputs and services to
farmers, ranchers, and foresters.
``(F) The processing, storing, and transporting of farm,
ranch, and forestry commodities.
``(G) The sale of land that has been used for
agriculture.''.

SEC. 1508. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement
this Act and the amendment made to this Act.
(b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall be made without regard to
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, 21 United States Code.
Strike section 1512 (title I, page 109, beginning line 1),
relating to mandatory reporting for peanuts
At the end of title I insert the following:

Subtitle F--Risk Management Accounts

SEC. 1601. ESTABLISHMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish optional
Risk Management Accounts for all eligible farmers and offer
incentives to encourage farmers to save money during years of
high profits to use during years of low profits, and for
retirement.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) Operator.--The term ``operator'' means an individual or
entity that--
(A) either--
(i) during each of the preceding 5 taxable years, filed a
schedule F of the Federal income tax returns or a comparable
tax form related to the agricultural operations of the
individual or entity, as approved by the Secretary; or
(ii) is a beginning farmer or rancher, as determined by the
Secretary; and
(B) earned--
(i) at least $10,000 in average adjusted gross revenue for
the preceding 5 taxable years;
(ii) less than such amount, but is a limited resource
farmer or rancher, as determined by the Secretary; or
(iii) at least $10,000 in estimated income from all
agricultural operations for the applicable year, as
determined by the Secretary, and is a beginning farmer or
rancher under subparagraph (A)(ii).
(2) Farm.--The term ``farm'' is land used for production of
crops, livestock and other agricultural products of which the
operator has more than de-minimis control or ownership.
(3) Adjusted gross revenue.--The term ``adjusted gross
revenue'' means the adjusted gross income as determined by
the Secretary, from the sale of agricultural crops grown,
dairy products produced, and livestock raised as part of an
agricultural operation--
(A) by taking into account gross receipts from the sale of
agricultural crops, eligible livestock and dairy products on
the agricultural operation, including insurance indemnities;
(B) by including all farm payments paid by the Secretary or
any other government entity for the agricultural operation
related to agricultural crops, eligible livestock and dairy
products;

[[Page H8707]]

(C) by deducting the cost or basis of livestock or other
items purchased for resale, such as feeder livestock, on the
agricultural operation;
(D) by excluding revenues that do not arise from the sale
of crops grown, dairy products produced or livestock raised
on an agricultural operation, such as revenues associated
with the packaging, merchandising, marketing and reprocessing
of the agricultural product beyond that typically undertaken
by a producer of the crop, dairy products or livestock as
determined by the Secretary;
(E) by using with such adjustments, additions and
additional documentation as the Secretary determines is
appropriate, information presented on--
(i) a schedule F of the Federal income tax returns of the
producer; or
(ii) a comparable tax form related to the agricultural
operations of the producer, as approved by the Secretary.
(c) Establishment.--Any operator of a farm, including dairy
farms and ``specialty crop'' farms, may establish a Risk
Management Account in the name of the farm to be jointly
administered by the Secretary and a private banking
institution, credit union, or other approved lender.
(d) Voluntary Contributions.--An operator of a farm may
make voluntary contributions to their Risk Management Account
up to the limits specified in section 219(b)(5)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
(e) Incentives for Contributions.--For producers eligible
for Direct Payments under Subtitle A of this Act, for each
dollar contributed to the account by the producer, up to the
full amount of the Direct Payment received in that year, the
Secretary shall make a matching contribution of 5 percent.
(f) Withdrawals.--An operator who establishes an account
may withdraw funds under the following conditions and
amounts:
(1) In a year when the farm's adjusted gross revenue is
less than 95 percent of the five-year average adjusted gross
revenue, the producer may withdraw funds up to the amount of
the difference.
(2) Up to 10 percent of the account balance for investments
in rural enterprises that contribute to the agricultural
economy, as defined by the Secretary, no more than once in
any five-year period.
(3) When withdrawals are necessary to protect the solvency
of the farm, as determined by the Secretary.
(4) To purchase revenue or crop insurance.
(5) Without restriction once the farmer has retired from
farming, as determined by the farmer's no longer filing a
Schedule F Income Tax Return.
(g) Violations.--If an operator fails to meet the
conditions established for a contribution to an account, the
operator shall refund to the Secretary an amount equal to the
contribution in any fiscal year in which a violation
occurred.
(h) Sale or Transfer.--If an operator sells or transfers a
farm, the operator may elect to--
(1) transfer all or a portion of the account to another
farm in which the operator has a controlling ownership
interest or acquires a controlling ownership interest within
two years of the sale or transfer of the original
agricultural operation;
(2) transfer the account to the purchaser of the farm if
the operator is not already a holder of an account; or
(3) rollover the account into an Individual Retirement
Account pursuant to section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 of the operator, if the operator is a natural person,
or, if the operator is an entity, into the accounts of any
natural person who has a substantial beneficial interest in
the farm that is the subject of the account.
(i) Conservation Compliance.--Any operator and any holder
of a beneficial interest in a farm subject to an account
shall--
(1) comply with applicable conservation requirements under
subtitle B of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3811 et seq.); and
(2) comply with applicable wetland conservation
requirements under subtitle C of title XII of that Act (16
U.S.C. 3821 et seq.).

[CONSERVATION TITLE]

In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2103
strike ``2012'' and inserting ``2009''.
[Section 2104 is amended in subsection (b) by striking ``by
striking paragraph (1)'' and all that follows through
``2012'' and inserting in paragraph (1), by striking
``2,000,000 acres'' and inserting ``5,000,000 acres''.]
In section 2104 redesignate subsections (d) and (e) as
subsections (e) and (f) and insert after subsection (c) the
following:
(d) Grassland Reserve Program.--Section 1241(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by
striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(5) For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the
grassland reserve program under subchapter C of chapter 2''.
Add at the end of section 2104 insert the following:
(e) Extension and Funding.--Section 1241(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by
striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(5) For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the
grassland reserve program under subchapter C of chapter 2.''.
(f) Enrollment Goals.--Section 1238N(b) of such Act (16
U.S.C. 3838N(b)) is amended in paragraph (1), by striking
``2,000,000 acres'' and inserting ``5,000,000 acres''.
In the matter to be inserted by section 2301 strike
subparagraphs (A) through (E) and insert the following:
(A) $20,000,000.
(B) $40,000,000.
(C) $50,000,000.
(D) $90,000,000.
(E) ``$100,000,000.
At the end of subtitle C of title I insert the following:

SEC. 2303. COMMUNITY FORESTS AND OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION
PROGRAM.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States Forest Service projects that 44
million acres of privately owned forested land will be
developed in the United States by 2030, including many of the
most important remaining forested parcels within and adjacent
to communities.
(2) There is an urgent need to assist local governments in
raising the funds necessary to purchase the most important of
these parcels of privately owned forested land as they come
up for sale.
(3) The breakup of forested land into smaller parcels has
resulted in an increasing number of owners of privately owned
forested land, but many of these owners have little or no
experience in forest stewardship.
(4) In fast growing communities of all sizes across the
United States, the remaining parcels of privately owned
forested land play an essential role in protecting public
water supplies, which has lead many local governments to
purchase these lands for municipal or county ownership.
(5) Rising rates of obesity and other public health
problems related to inactivity have been shown to be
ameliorated by improving public access to safe and pleasing
areas for outdoor recreation, which has lead many local
governments to purchase lands for recreational purposes under
municipal or county ownership.
(6) Across the United States, many communities of diverse
types and sizes are deriving significant financial benefit
from owning and managing municipal or county forestlands as a
source of local revenue that also contributes significantly
to the health of the forest products economy at the local and
national levels.
(7) The access to privately owned forested land for
hunting, fishing, and trapping has declined, and the number
of persons participating in these activities has likewise
declined, as these lands are divided into smaller parcels and
more owners of privately owned forested land post their land
against public use, which has lead many local governments to
purchase forestlands to guarantee access for hunting,
fishing, and trapping.
(8) There is a national interest and an urgent need to
assist local governments in raising the funds necessary to
purchase important privately owned forested land that will
maintain the diverse public benefits of forestlands close to
or within all manner of communities nationwide, from close-
knit rural communities to fast growing suburban and exurban
areas.
(b) Establishment of Program.--The Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 21. FORESTS AND OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment and Purpose.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall establish within the Forest Service a
program to be known as the `Community Forests and Open Space
Conservation Program' (in this section referred to as the
`Program') for the purpose of assisting local governments in
a State selected to participate in the Program to acquire
forested land that--
``(1) is economically, culturally, and environmentally
important to the locality in which the land is located;
``(2) is threatened by conversion to non-forest uses; and
``(3) will conserve public access to and benefit from the
land for a wide variety of public purposes, including model
forest stewardship, sustainable timber production, forest-
based educational and cultural activities, wildlife habitat
protection, watershed protection, or outdoor recreation,
including hunting and fishing.
``(b) Selection of Participating States.--
``(1) Selection.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall select at
least one State in each of the New England, Mid-Atlantic,
Midwest, South, West, and Pacific Northwest regions of the
United States to participate in the Program. The Secretary
shall make the selections from among applications submitted
by willing States. No State shall be compelled to participate
in the Program.
``(2) Implementation.--Authority for implementation of the
Program in a participating State shall lie with the State
forester, equivalent State official, or other appropriate
State natural resource management agency designated by the
Governor of the State.
``(c) Eligibility and Ranking Criteria.--
``(1) State assessment of need.--Each participating State
shall prepare an assessment of need that identifies the
geographic areas within the State that will be the focus of
land acquisition activities under the Program and priority
objectives for conservation, based on conditions and public
needs in the State. This requirement may be satisfied by
inclusion of the assessment as part of an

[[Page H8708]]

integrated State-wide forest planning process for application
of Federal programs in the State.
``(2) Establishment of criteria.--Not later than one year
after the date of the enactment of this section, the
Secretary shall establish eligibility and ranking criteria
for the selection of land acquisition proposals to receive
funding under the Program. The Secretary shall establish the
criteria in consultation with State Forest Stewardship
Advisory Committees, State Urban and Community Forestry
Advisory Committees, and similar organizations.
``(3) Priorities.--In establishing the eligibility and
ranking criteria under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall
give priority to the acquisition of lands that--
``(A) meet identified local open space and natural resource
needs, as expressed in town plans, regional plans, or other
relevant local planning documents;
``(B) can be effectively managed to model good forest
stewardship for private landowners and support forest-based
educational programs, including vocational education in
forestry;
``(C) provide significant protection of public water
supplies or other waterways;
``(D) can offer long-term economic benefit to communities
through forestry;
``(E) contain important wildlife habitat;
``(F) provide convenient public access for outdoor
recreation, including hunting and fishing; and
``(G) are most threatened with conversion to nonforest
uses.
``(d) Application and Ranking of Proposals.--
``(1) Preparation and contents.--A local government in a
participating State may prepare an application for assistance
under the Program in the acquisition of forested land within
the geographic program focus area in the State identified
under subsection (c)(1). The application shall include
certification by the appropriate unit or units of local
government that the proposed land acquisition is consistent
with any comprehensive plans for development adopted by the
unit of local government and include such other information
as the Secretary may prescribe.
``(2) Submission.--Participating States shall rank all
applications according to priority and submit the
applications to the Secretary at such times and in such form
as the Secretary may prescribe.
``(3) National list.--The Secretary shall maintain a
national list of all submitted applications, ranked according
to the criteria established pursuant to subsection (c).
``(e) Ownership of Land.--
``(1) Government ownership.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), all land acquired in whole or in part using
funds provided under the Program shall be owned in fee simple
by a local government, such as a municipality or county.
``(2) Nonprofit organization ownership.--Upon the request
of a participating State, designated nonprofit organizations
operating within that State may also own land acquired using
funds provided under the Program, subject to the condition
that the land is open for public access consistent with the
purposes and criteria of the Program.
``(3) Effect of violation.--If the owner of land acquired
in whole or in part using funds provided under the Program
sells the land, the owner shall reimburse the Secretary for
the full amount of the funds provided under the Program, plus
a penalty equal to 50 percent of the sale price or appraised
value of the land at the time of the sale, whichever is
greater. The local government or designated nonprofit
organization that sold the land shall no longer be eligible
for assistance under the Program.
``(f) Duties of Owners.--
``(1) Use and prohibition on conversion.--The owner of land
acquired in whole or in part using funds provided under the
Program shall manage the land in a manner that is consistent
with the purposes for which the land was purchased under the
Program and shall not convert the property to other nonforest
uses. Public access for compatible recreational uses, as
determined by the owner, shall be required.
``(2) Management plan.--Not later than two years after the
closing date on the purchase of land using funds under the
Program, the owner of the land shall complete a management
plan for the land, which shall be subject to the approval of
the responsible State agency. Management plans shall be
created through a public process that allows for community
participation and input.
``(g) Cost Sharing Requirements.--
``(1) Cost sharing.--In accordance with such terms and
conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, costs for the
acquisition of land under the Program, and other costs
associated with the Program, shall be shared among
participating entities, including State, county, municipal,
and other governmental units, landowners, corporations, or
private organizations. Such costs may include costs
associated with planning, administration, property
acquisition, and property management. The Secretary may
authorize in-kind contributions.
``(2) Federal cost share.--The Federal share of the cost to
acquire land under the Program shall not exceed 50 percent of
the total cost to acquire the land. Payments under this
section shall be made in accordance with Federal appraisal
and acquisition standards and procedures.
``(3) Administration and technical assistance.--In order to
assist local governments in achieving model stewardship of
land acquired under the Program, 10 percent of all funds
appropriated for a fiscal year for the Program shall be
allocated to the responsible State agencies in participating
States to administer the Program and to provide technical
assistance to local governments for forest stewardship,
including development and implementation of management plans
required by subsection (f)(2).
``(h) Private Property Protections.--
``(1) Access.--Nothing in this section--
``(A) requires a private property owner to permit public
access (including Federal, State, or local government access)
to private property; or
``(B) modifies any provision of Federal, State, or local
law with regard to public access to, or use of, private land.
``(2) Liability.--Nothing in this section creates any
liability, or has any effect on liability under any other
law, of a private property owner with respect to any persons
injured on the private property.
``(3) Recognition of authority to control land use.--
Nothing in this section modifies any authority of Federal,
State, or local governments to regulate land use.
``(4) Participation of private property owners.--Nothing in
this section requires a private property owner to participate
in the Program.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the funds
available through the Commodity Credit Corporation, The
Secretary shall use to carry out the Program $10,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012.''.
In the matter to be inserted by section 2401(b) strike
``2011'' and insert ``2008'' and before clause (i) insert the
following (and redesignate subsequent clauses accordingly):
``(i) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
``(ii) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
``(iii) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;''.
In the matter to be inserted by section 2401(d) strike
subparagraphs (A) through (D) and insert the following:
``(A) $1,675,000,000 in fiscal year 2008;
``(B) $1,840,000,000 in fiscal year 2009;
``(C) $1,840,000,000 in fiscal year 2010;
``(D) $1,940,000,000 in fiscal year 2011; and''.
Section 2401(e) is amended to read as follows:
(e) Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.--Paragraph (7) of
section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) The wildlife habitat incentives program under section
1240N, using, to the maximum extent practicable--
``(A) $85,000,000 in fiscal year 2008;
``(B) $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2009;
``(C) $140,000,000 in fiscal year 2010;
``(D) $150,000,000 in fiscal years 2011 and 2012.''.

[TRADE TITLE]

Strike section 3005 (relating to the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program)
and insert the following:

SEC. 3005. MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM.

(a) Administration of Program.--Section 3107 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``The President shall designate 1 or more
Federal agencies to'' and inserting ``The Secretary shall'';
(2) in subsection (f)(2), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by striking ``implementing agency'' and
inserting ``Secretary''; and
(3) in subsections (c)(2)(B), (f)(1), (h)(1) and(2), and
(i), by striking ``President'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Secretary''.
(b) Funding.--Subsection (1) of such section is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) Use of commodity credit corporation funds.--Of the
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary
shall use to carry out this section--
``(A) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(B) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
``(C) $220,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
``(D) $260,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
``(E) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
(3) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by
striking ``any Federal agency implementing or assisting'' and
inserting ``the Department of Agriculture or any other
Federal department or agency assisting''.

[NUTRITION TITLE]

In title IV of the bill, strike section 4008 (relating to
Adjusting Countable Resources for Inflation), as added to the
bill by the En Bloc Amendment adopted, and insert the
following (and make such technical and conforming changes as
may be appropriate).

SEC. 4008. ADJUSTING COUNTABLE RESOURCES FOR INFLATION.

[[Page H8709]]

(B) by striking ``$3,000'' and inserting ``$3,900 (as
adjusted in accordance with subparagraph (B)),''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Adjustment for inflation.--
``(i) In general.--Beginning on October 1, 2008, and each
October 1 thereafter, the amounts in subparagraph (A) shall
be adjusted to the nearest $100 increment to reflect changes
for the 12-month period ending the preceding June in the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
``(ii) Requirement.--Each adjustment under clause (i) shall
be based on the unrounded amount for the prior 12-month
period.''.
At appropriate places throughout title IV, insert the
following (and make such technical and conforming changes as
may be appropriate):

SEC. __. EXCLUDING COMBAT RELATED PAY FROM COUNTABLE INCOME.

Section (5)(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2014(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and (18)'', and inserting ``(18)'', and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and (19) any additional payment received under
Chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, by (or as an
allotment to or transfer from) a member of the United States
Armed Forces deployed to a designated combat zone for the
duration of the member's deployment to or service in a combat
zone if the additional pay was not received immediately prior
to serving in that or another combat zone.''.

SEC. __. INCREASING THE STANDARD DEDUCTION.

Section (5)(e)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2014(e)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(ii) by striking ``not less than
$134'' and all that follows through the period at the end,
and inserting the following: ``not less than $156, $267,
$220, and $137, respectively. On October 1, 2008, and each
October 1 thereafter, such standard deduction shall be an
amount that is equal to the amount from the previous fiscal
year adjusted to the nearest lower dollar increment to
reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for
items other than food, for the 12 months ending the preceding
June 30.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``not less than
$269.'' and inserting the following: ``not less than $313. On
October 1, 2008, and each October 1 thereafter, such standard
deduction shall be an amount that is equal to the amount of
the previous fiscal year adjusted to the nearest dollar
increment to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for
All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, for items other than food, for the 12 months
ending the preceding June 30.''.

SEC. __. EXCLUDING DEPENDENT CARE EXPENSES.

Section (5)(e)(3)(A) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 2014(e)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``, the maximum
allowable level of which shall be $200 per month for each
dependent child under 2 years of age and $175 per month for
each other dependent,''.

SEC. __. ADJUSTING COUNTABLE RESOURCES FOR INFLATION.

Section (5)(g) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2014(g)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(g)(1) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(g) Allowable Financial Resources.--
``(1) Total amount.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary''.
(2) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated by paragraph
(1))--
(A) by inserting ``(as adjusted in accordance with
subparagraph (B))'' after ``$2,000''; and
(B) by inserting ``(as adjusted in accordance with
subparagraph (B))'' after ``$3,000''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Adjustment for inflation.--
``(i) In general.--Beginning on October 1, 2007, and each
October 1 thereafter, the amounts in subparagraph (A) shall
be adjusted to the nearest $100 increment to reflect changes
for the 12-month period ending the preceding June in the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
``(ii) Requirement.--Each adjustment under clause (i) shall
be based on the unrounded amount for the prior 12-month
period.''.

SEC. __. EXCLUDING EDUCATION ACCOUNTS FROM COUNTABLE INCOME.

Section (5)(g) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2014(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Exclusion of education accounts from countable
resources.--
``(A) Mandatory exclusions.--The Secretary shall exclude
from financial resources under this subsection the value of
any funds in a qualified tuition program described in section
529 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or in a Coverdell
education savings account under section 530 of that Code.
``(B) Discretionary exclusions.--The Secretary may also
exclude from financial resources under this subsection the
value of any program or account included in any successor or
similar provision that is enacted and determined to be exempt
from taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.

SEC. __. EXCLUDING RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FROM COUNTABLE INCOME.

Section (5)(g) of the of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 2014(g)), as amended by the preceding section, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (g)(2)(B)(v) by striking ``or retirement
account (including an individual account)'' and inserting
``account''; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
``(8) Exclusion of retirement accounts from countable
resources.--
``(A) Mandatory exclusions.--The Secretary shall exclude
from financial resources under this subsection the value of
any funds in a plan, contract, or account as described in
section 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A, 457(b), or
501(c)(18) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the value
of funds in a Federal Thrift Savings Plan account as provided
section 8439 of title 5, United States Code.
``(B) Discretionary exclusions.--
``(i) The Secretary may exclude from financial resources
under this subsection any other retirement plans, contracts,
or accounts that have been determined to be tax qualified
retirement plans, contracts, or accounts, under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
``(ii) The Secretary may also exclude from financial
resources under this subsection the value of any program or
account included in any successor or similar provision that
is enacted and determined to be exempt from taxation under
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.

SEC. __. INCREASING THE MINIMUM BENEFIT.

Section 8(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2017(a)) is amended by striking ``$10 per month'' and
inserting ``10 percent of the thrifty food plan for a
household containing 1 member, as determined by the Secretary
under section 3(o)''.

SEC. __. EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

Section 27(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2036(a)) is amended by--
(1) by striking ``(a) Purchase of Commodities'' and all
that follows through 2007' and inserting the following:
``(a) Purchase of Commodities.--
``(1) In general.--As provided in paragraph (2), for each
of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012'';
(2) by striking ``$140,000,000 of''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Amounts.--The following amounts are made available to
carry out this subsection:
``(A) for fiscal year 2008, $250,000,000; and
``(B) for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2012, the
dollar amount of commodities specified in subparagraph (A)
adjusted by the percentage by which the thrifty food plan has
been adjusted under section 3(o)(4) between June 30, 2007 and
June 30 of the immediately preceding fiscal year.''.

SEC. __. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE NUTRITION PROMOTION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting
through the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing
Service, shall establish and carry out a program to provide
assistance to eligible trade organizations described in
paragraph (3) to increase the consumption of fruits and
vegetables in the United States to meet Federal health
guidelines.
(b) Requirements for Participation.--To be eligible for
assistance under this section, an eligible trade organization
shall--
(1) prepare and submit a plan to increase the consumption
of fruits and vegetables in the United States to the
Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service that
meets any guidelines governing such plans established by the
Administrator; and
(2) meet any other requirements established by the
Administrator.
(c) Eligible Trade Organizations.--An eligible trade
organization referred to in paragraph (1) means any of the
following:
(1) A nonprofit fruit and vegetable trade organizations in
the United States.
(2) A nonprofit State or regional fruit and vegetable
organization.
(3) A fruit and vegetable agricultural cooperative in the
United States.
(4) A commodity board or commission in the United States.
(5) A small business engaged in the fruit and vegetable
industry in the United States.
(d) Matching Funds.--Assistance provided under this section
shall not exceed--
(1) in the case of an organization described in paragraphs
(1) through (5) of subsection (c), 90 percent of the cost of
the plan to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables
in the United States submitted under paragraph (b)(1); and
(2) in the case of an organization described in paragraph
(c)(5), 50 percent of the cost of the plan to increase the
consumption of fruits and vegetables in the United States
submitted under paragraph (b)(1).
(e) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing
Service shall use $15,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2008
through 2012 to carry out this section.
In section 4020(a), strike paragraph (4) and insert the
following:
(4) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(g) Funding.--For each of the fiscal years 2008 through
2012, the Secretary shall use $30 million of the funds,
facilities and authorities of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to carry out this section.''.
In section 4303(4)(A), strike clause (ii) and insert the
following:
(ii) by striking ``$9,000,000'' and inserting
``$100,000,000''.
At the end of subtitle C of title IV, insert the
following(and make such technical and conforming changes as
may be appropriate):

[[Page H8710]]

SEC. ___. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Domestic hunger goal.--The term ``domestic hunger
goal'' means--
(A) the goal of reducing hunger in the United States to at
or below 2 percent by 2010; or
(B) the goal of reducing food insecurity in the United
States to at or below 6 percent by 2010.
(2) Emergency feeding organization.--The term ``emergency
feeding organization'' has the meaning given the term in
section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7
U.S.C. 7501).
(3) Food security.--The term ``food security'' means the
state in which an individual has access to enough food for an
active, healthy life.
(4) Hunger-free communities goal.--The term ``hunger-free
communities goal'' means any of the 14 goals described in the
H. Con. Res. 302 (102nd Congress).
(b) Hunger Reports.--
(1) Study.--
(A) Timeline.--
(i) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study of
major matters relating to the problem of hunger in the United
States, as determined by the Secretary.
(ii) Update.--Not later than 5 years after the date on
which the study under clause (i) is conducted, the Secretary
shall update the study.
(B) Matters to be assessed.--The matters to be assessed by
the Secretary in the study and update under this paragraph
shall include--
(i) data on hunger and food insecurity in the United
States;
(ii) measures carried out during the previous year by
Federal, State, and local governments to achieve domestic
hunger goals and hunger-free communities goals;
(iii) measures that could be carried out by Federal, State,
and local governments to achieve domestic hunger goals and
hunger-free communities goals; and
(iv) the impact of hunger and household food insecurity on
obesity, in the context of poverty and food assistance
programs.
(2) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall develop
recommendations on--
(A) removing obstacles to achieving domestic hunger goals
and hunger-free communities goals; and
(B) otherwise reducing domestic hunger.
(3) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the President
and Congress--
(A) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, a report that contains--
(i) a detailed statement of the results of the study, or
the most recent update to the study, conducted under
paragraph (1)(A); and
(ii) the most recent recommendations of the Secretary under
paragraph (2); and
(B) not later than 5 years after the date of submission of
the report under subparagraph (A), an update of the report.
(c) Hunger-Free Communities Collaborative Grants.--
(1) Definition of eligible entity.--In this subsection, the
term ``eligible entity'' means a public food program service
provider or a nonprofit organization, including but not
limited to an emergency feeding organization, that
demonstrates the organization has collaborated, or will
collaborate, with 1 or more local partner organizations to
achieve at least 1 hunger-free communities goal.
(2) Program authorized.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall use not more than 55
percent of any funds made available under subsection (f) to
make grants to eligible entities to pay the Federal share of
the costs of an activity described in paragraph (4).
(B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out an activity under this subsection shall not
exceed 80 percent.
(C) Non-federal share.--
(i) Calculation.--The non-Federal share of the cost of an
activity under this subsection may be provided in cash or in
kind, fairly evaluated, including facilities, equipment, or
services.
(ii) Sources.--Any entity may provide the non-Federal share
of the cost of an activity under this subsection through a
State government, a local government, or a private source.
(3) Application.--
(A) In general.--To receive a grant under this subsection,
an eligible entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary at the time and in the manner and accompanied by
any information the Secretary may require.
(B) Contents.--Each application submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) identify any activity described in paragraph (4) that
the grant will be used to fund;
(ii) describe the means by which an activity identified
under clause (i) will reduce hunger in the community of the
eligible entity;
(iii) list any partner organizations of the eligible entity
that will participate in an activity funded by the grant;
(iv) describe any agreement between a partner organization
and the eligible entity necessary to carry out an activity
funded by the grant; and
(v) if an assessment described in paragraph (4)(A) has been
performed, include--

(I) a summary of that assessment; and
(II) information regarding the means by which the grant
will help reduce hunger in the community of the eligible
entity.

(C) Priority.--In making grants under this subsection, the
Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that--
(i) demonstrate in the application of the eligible entity
that the eligible entity makes collaborative efforts to
reduce hunger in the community of the eligible entity; and
(ii)(I) serve a predominantly rural and geographically
underserved area;
(II) serve communities in which the rates of food
insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment are demonstrably
higher than national average rates;
(III) provide evidence of long-term efforts to reduce
hunger in the community;
(IV) provide evidence of public support for the efforts of
the eligible entity; or
(V) demonstrate in the application of the eligible entity a
commitment to achieving more than 1 hunger-free communities
goal.
(4) Use of funds.--
(A) Assessment of hunger in the community.--
(i) In general.--An eligible entity in a community that has
not performed an assessment described in clause (ii) may use
a grant received under this subsection to perform the
assessment for the community.
(ii) Assessment.--The assessment referred to in clause (ii)
shall include--

(I) an analysis of the problem of hunger in the community
served by the eligible entity;
(II) an evaluation of any facility and any equipment used
to achieve a hunger-free communities goal in the community;
(III) an analysis of the effectiveness and extent of
service of existing nutrition programs and emergency feeding
organizations; and
(IV) a plan to achieve any other hunger-free communities
goal in the community.

(B) Activities.--An eligible entity in a community that has
submitted an assessment to the Secretary shall use a grant
received under this subsection for any fiscal year for
activities of the eligible entity, including--
(i) meeting the immediate needs of people in the community
served by the eligible entity who experience hunger by--

(I) distributing food;
(II) providing community outreach; or
(III) improving access to food as part of a comprehensive
service;

(ii) developing new resources and strategies to help reduce
hunger in the community;
(iii) establishing a program to achieve a hunger-free
communities goal in the community, including--

(I) a program to prevent, monitor, and treat children in
the community experiencing hunger or poor nutrition; or
(II) a program to provide information to people in the
community on hunger, domestic hunger goals, and hunger-free
communities goals; and

(iv) establishing a program to provide food and nutrition
services as part of a coordinated community-based
comprehensive service.
(d) Hunger-Free Communities Infrastructure Grants.--
(1) Definition of eligible entity.--In this subsection, the
term ``eligible entity'' means an emergency feeding
organization (as defined in section 201A(4) of the Emergency
Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501(4))).
(2) Program authorized.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall use not more than 45
percent of any funds made available under subsection (f) to
make grants to eligible entities to pay the Federal share of
the costs of an activity described in paragraph (4).
(B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out an activity under this subsection shall not
exceed 80 percent.
(3) Application.--
(A) In general.--To receive a grant under this subsection,
an eligible entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary at the time and in the manner and accompanied by
any information the Secretary may require.
(B) Contents.--Each application submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) identify any activity described in paragraph (4) that
the grant will be used to fund; and
(ii) describe the means by which an activity identified
under clause (i) will reduce hunger in the community of the
eligible entity.
(C) Priority.--In making grants under this subsection, the
Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities the
applications of which demonstrate 2 or more of the following:
(i) The eligible entity serves a predominantly rural and
geographically underserved area.
(ii) The eligible entity serves a community in which the
rates of food insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment
are demonstrably higher than national average rates.
(iii) The eligible entity serves a community that has
carried out long-term efforts to reduce hunger in the
community.
(iv) The eligible entity serves a community that provides
public support for the efforts of the eligible entity.
(v) The eligible entity is committed to achieving more than
1 hunger-free communities goal.
(4) Use of funds.--An eligible entity shall use a grant
received under this subsection for any fiscal year to carry
out activities of the eligible entity, including--
(A) constructing, expanding, or repairing a facility or
equipment to support hunger relief agencies in the community;

[[Page H8711]]

(B) assisting an emergency feeding organization in the
community in obtaining locally-produced produce and protein
products; and
(C) assisting an emergency feeding organization in the
community to process and serve wild game.
(e) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2013, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing--
(1) each grant made under this section, including--
(A) a description of any activity funded by such a grant;
and
(B) the degree of success of each activity funded by such a
grant in achieving hunger-free communities goals; and
(2) the degree of success of all activities funded by
grants under this section in achieving domestic hunger goals.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
In subsection (a)(1) of the amendment made by section
4401(a) of the bill, strike ``$15,000,000'' and insert
``$45,000,000'' .
In subsection (a) of the amendment made by section 4401(a)
of the bill, strike paragraph (2) and insert the following:
(2) There is authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out and
expand the senior farmers' market nutrition programs.
At the end of subtitle D of title IV, insert the following
(and make such technical and conforming changes as may be
appropriate):

SEC. __. GRANTS FOR LOCAL FARMERS AND COMMUNITY FARMING.

(a) Grants to Assist Municipalities to Help Local Farmers
to Grow Food to Be Sold Locally.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make a
grant in accordance with this subsection to a municipality to
enable the municipality to facilitate the ability of local
farmers to grow food crops or raise beef, poultry, or other
consumable agricultural products to be sold to the local
community.
(2) Maximum amount of grant.--The amount of a grant under
this subsection shall not exceed $100,000.
(3) Use of grants.--
(A) In general.--A municipality to which a grant is made
under this subsection shall use the grant, subject to
subparagraph (B), to establish a community supported
agriculture project, by--
(i) leasing municipal land to a participating farmer;
(ii) providing a loan guarantee for a loan made for the
purchase or lease of equipment or facilities to be used by a
participating farmer;
(iii) establish a kitchen certified by relevant health
authorities for use by the participating farmer and other
farmers operating, as determined by the municipality, locally
or regionally; or
(iv) establish a beef, poultry or other agricultural
product processing plant certified by relevant health
authorities for use by the participating farmer or other
farmers operating, a determined by the municipality, locally
or regionally.
(B) Requirements relating to minimum output, local sale,
and under-served communities.--
(i) In general.--A lease entered into or a loan guarantee
provided pursuant to this subsection shall provide that the
municipality may terminate the lease or rescind the loan
guarantee, as the case may be, if, during each year for which
the lease or loan guarantee is in effect--

(I) the total value of the crops, beef, poultry, or other
consumable agricultural products produced from the land
involved is less than $5,000;
(II) at least 30 percent of the crops, beef, poultry, or
other consumable agricultural products are not made available
for sale in an under-served community; or
(III) at least 70 percent of the crops, beef, poultry, or
other consumable agricultural products are not made available
for sale locally or regionally.

(ii) Local or regional sale.--An agricultural product shall
be considered to be made available for sale locally or
regionally for purposes of this subsection if the product is
distributed within the locality or region where produced, in
a manner which--

(I) ensures that information regarding the product origin,
production practices, or other similar information which is a
source of value to the end-use consumer is typically
conveyed;
(II) facilitates the likelihood that the income of the
community supported agriculture operation is increased
through maximization of the share of the retail food price
retained by the producer;
(III) ensures that consumers are provided with an
affordable product produced, processed, and distributed in
the locality or region where the end-use consumers acquire
the product; and
(IV) ensures that the product has traveled less than half
of the current average distance of all food produced and
consumed in the United States, as determined by the
Secretary.

(C) Public bidding required.--The municipality shall
solicit bids from the general public for the leases and loan
guarantees to be provided by the municipality pursuant to
this subsection. The municipality shall conduct the bidding
in a manner that creates a primary preference for minority
and socially-disadvantaged farmers and ranchers (as defined
in section 355(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2003 (e))) and a secondary
preference for participating farmers who will farm the land
organically.
(4) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.--For
grants under this subsection, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary not more than $40,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
(b) Grants to Support the Formation of Community-Supported
Agricultural Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make a
grant to enable a local nongovernmental farming association
that promotes community-based farming or to a qualified
farmer to provide technical, advisory, and other assistance
to support the formation of a municipally-based community-
supported agricultural project.
(2) Maximum amount of grant.--The amount of a grant under
this subsection shall not exceed $25,000.
(3) Use of grants.--A grant recipient shall use the grant
to--
(A) provide public information about the assistance
available pursuant to this section;
(B) provide technical and advisory assistance to
participating farmers who enter into a lease or receive a
loan guarantee from a municipality pursuant to section 1; or
(C) conduct training sessions on subjects relevant to
starting, operating, maintaining, or marketing crops produced
by participating farmers.
(4) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``qualified
farmer'' means a farmer who demonstrated expertise in setting
up a profit-making enterprise, such as a farm, a community
supported agriculture operation, or a farmers market that has
been in operation at least five years.
(5) Dispute resolution.--In the event of a landlord-tenant
dispute, dispute concerning ownership rights to improved
infrastructure, or other dispute between a municipality and a
participating farmer, the parties shall utilize the services
of the Certified State Agricultural Mediation Program is
administered by the Farm Service Agency.
(6) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.--For
grants under this subsection, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary not more than $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
(c) Grants to Provide Start-up Funds to Farmers Who Must
Diversify Their Operations in Order to Participate in
Community-Supported Agricultural Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make a
one-time grant to provide start-up funding to an agricultural
producer who must diversify the agricultural operations of
the producer in order to participate in a community-supported
agricultural project.
(2) Maximum amount of grant.--The amount of a grant under
this subsection shall not exceed $5,000.
(3) Use of grants.--An agricultural producer to whom a
grant is made under this subsection shall use the grant to
begin a new agricultural operation.
(4) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.--For
grants under this subsection, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary not more than $2,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
(d) Marketing Assistance for Community Supported
Agriculture Projects.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
provide marketing assistance to a participating farmer who
has received a lease or loan guarantee under section 1 that
has not been terminated, to assist the farmer in marketing to
community institutions, including schools, child care
centers, and senior centers.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Community-supported agricultural project.--The term
``community-supported agricultural project'' means a contract
under which a group of consumers, a nonprofit organization,
or a public agency which represents consumers is obligated to
purchase a specified amount of 1 or more agricultural
products directly from 1 or more agricultural producers
during a specific period.
(2) Farm vendor.--The term `farm vendor' means a farmer, a
member of the farmer's family, or employee of the farmer, who
sells their products at a farmers market. The farm vendor
must offer for sale at the market only the food or other
items that are grown or produced by that farm.
(3) Marketing alliance.--The term ``marketing alliance''
means a legally recognized entity, such as the National
Farmers Market Coalition, from which growers and farmers
market managers can obtain technical support on farmers
market issues.
(4) Municipality.--The term ``municipality'' includes any
city, town, borough, county, parish, district, transportation
district, assessment jurisdiction, or other public body, or
any other political subdivision within the territorial limits
of the United States, created by or pursuant to State law or
the law of an Indian tribe or tribal organization, with the
authority to impose a tax, charge, or fee.
(5) Nongovernmental farming association.--The term
``nongovernmental farming association'' means any of the
following entities that has legal standing:
(A) A group of agricultural producers that operates as a
marketing alliance.

[[Page H8712]]

(B) A cooperative association, each of whose owners and
members is an agricultural producer.
(C) A group of 2 or more agricultural producers or farm
vendors who sell an agricultural product through a common
distribution channel.
(D) A nonprofit organization with expertise in farming.
(E) A network or association of agricultural producers.
(6) Participating farmer.--The term ``participating
farmer'' means an agricultural producer who has made a
binding commitment to participate in a community-supported
agricultural project.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' includes the several States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United
States Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(8) Under-served community.--The term ``under-served
community'' means an urban, rural, or tribal community which
has--
(A) limited access to affordable, healthy foods, including
fresh fruits and vegetables, in retail grocery stores or
farmer-to-consumer direct markets;
(B) a high incidence of diet-related diseases, including
obesity;
(C) a high rate of hunger or food insecurity; or
(D) severe or persistent poverty.
(f) Regulations.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
this section.

[RURAL DEVELOPMENT TITLE]

Strike section 6013 and insert the following:

SEC. 6013. RURAL ENTREPRENEUR AND MICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.

Subtitle D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act is amended by inserting after section 364 (7 U.S.C.
2006f) the following:

``SEC. 365. RURAL ENTREPRENEUR AND MICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Economically disadvantaged microentrepreneur.--The
term `economically disadvantaged microentrepreneur' means an
owner, majority owner, or developer of a microenterprise that
has the ability to compete in the private sector but has been
impaired because of diminished capital and credit
opportunities, as compared to other microentrepreneurs in the
industry involved.
``(2) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
``(3) Intermediary.--The term `intermediary' means a
nonprofit entity that has a demonstrated capacity to provide
assistance--
``(A) to a microenterprise development organization; or
``(B) for a microenterprise development program.
``(4) Low-income individual.--The term `low-income
individual' means an individual with an income (adjusted for
family size) of not more than the greatest of--
``(A) 80 percent of median income of the non-metropolitan
statistical area in which the individual resides;
``(B) 80 percent of the statewide non-metropolitan area
median income; or
``(C) 80 percent of the national median income.
``(5) Microcredit.--The term `microcredit' means a business
loan or loan guarantee of not more than $50,000 that is
provided to a rural entrepreneur.
``(6) Microenterprise.--The term `microenterprise' means--
``(A) a self-employed individual; or
``(B) a business entity with not more than 10 full-time-
equivalent employees.
``(7) Microenterprise development organization.--The term
`microenterprise development organization' means a private,
nonprofit entity that--
``(A) provides training and technical assistance to rural
entrepreneurs;
``(B) facilitates access to capital or another service
described in subsection (b) for rural entrepreneurs; and
``(C) has a demonstrated record of delivering services to
economically disadvantaged microentrepreneurs, or an
effective plan to develop a program to deliver
microenterprise services to rural entrepreneurs effectively,
as determined by the Secretary.
``(8) Microenterprise development program.--The term
`microenterprise development program' means a program
administered by an organization serving a rural area.
``(9) Microentrepreneur.--The term `microentrepreneur'
means the owner, operator, or developer of a microenterprise.
``(10) Program.--The term `Program' means the rural
entrepreneur and microenterprise program established under
subsection (b)(1).
``(11) Qualified organization.--The term `qualified
organization' means----
``(A) an intermediary;
``(B) a microenterprise development organization or
microenterprise development program that--
``(i) has a demonstrated record of delivering
microenterprise services to rural entrepreneurs; or
``(ii) has an effective plan to develop a program to
deliver microenterprise services to rural entrepreneurs
effectively, as determined by the Secretary; or
``(C) an Indian tribe, the tribal government of which
certifies to the Secretary that no microenterprise
development organization or microenterprise development
program exists under the jurisdiction of the Indian tribe;
``(D) a group of 2 or more organizations or Indian tribes
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) that agree to act
jointly as a qualified organization under this section; or
``(E) for purposes of subsection (b), a public college or
university.
``(12) Rural capacity-building service.--The term `rural
capacity-building service' means a service provided to an
organization that--
``(A) is, or is in the process of becoming, a
microenterprise development organization or microenterprise
development program; and
``(B) serves rural areas for the purpose of enhancing the
ability of the organization to provide training, technical
assistance, and other related services to rural
entrepreneurs.
``(13) Rural entrepreneur.--The term `rural entrepreneur'
means a microentrepreneur, or prospective microentrepreneur--
``(A) the principal place of business of which is in a
rural area; and
``(B) that is unable to obtain sufficient training,
technical assistance, or microcredit elsewhere, as determined
by the Secretary.
``(14) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Rural Business and
Cooperative Development Service.
``(15) Tribal government.--The term `tribal government'
means the governing body of an Indian tribe.
``(b) Rural Entrepreneurship and Microenterprise Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a rural
entrepreneurship and microenterprise program.
``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Program shall be to
provide low-income individuals and moderate-income
individuals with--
``(A) the skills necessary to establish new
microenterprises in rural areas; and
``(B) continuing technical and financial assistance as
individuals and business starting or operating
microenterprises.
``(3) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant under the
Program to a qualified organization or intermediary--
``(i) to provide training, operational support, or a rural
capacity-building service to another qualified organization
to assist the other organization in developing
microenterprise training, technical assistance, market
development assistance, and other related services, for
microenterprise, with an emphasis on those that--

``(I) have 5 or fewer full-time equivalent employees;
``(II) serve low income individuals; or
``(III) serve areas that have lost population;

``(ii) to assist in researching and developing the best
practices in delivering training, technical assistance, and
microcredit to rural entrepreneurs; and
``(iii) to carry out such other projects and activities as
the Secretary determines to be consistent with the purposes
of this section.
``(B) Subgrants.--Subject to such regulations as the
Secretary may promulgate, a qualified organization that
receives a grant under this paragraph may use the grant to
provide assistance to other qualified organizations, such as
small or emerging qualified organizations.
``(C) Diversity.--In making grants under this paragraph,
the Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that grant recipients include qualified
organizations--
``(i) of varying sizes; and
``(ii) that serve racially and ethnically diverse
populations.
``(D) Matching requirement.--
``(i) In general.--As a condition of any grant made under
this paragraph, the Secretary shall require the grantee to
expend for the project involved, from non-Federal sources,
not less than 25 percent of the total amount of the grant.
``(ii) Form of contribution.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of a project described in clause (i) may be provided--

``(I) in cash (including through fees, grants (including
community development block grants), and gifts); or
``(II) in-kind.

``(4) Rural microloan program.--
``(A) Establishment.--In carrying out the Program, the
Secretary may carry out a rural microloan program.
``(B) Purpose.--The purpose of the rural microloan program
shall be to provide technical and financial assistance to
microenterprises in rural areas and rural entrepreneurs, with
an emphasis on those that--
``(i) have 5 or fewer full-time equivalent employees;
``(ii) serve low income individuals; or
``(iii) serve areas that have lost population.
``(C) Authority of secretary.--In carrying out the rural
microloan program, the Secretary may--
``(i) make loans to qualified organizations for the purpose
of making short-term, fixed interest rate microloans to
startup, newly established, and growing microenterprises in
rural areas; and
``(ii) in conjunction with the loans, provide grants in
accordance with subparagraph (E) to the qualified
organizations for the purpose

[[Page H8713]]

of providing intensive marketing, management, and technical
assistance to microenterprises in rural areas that are
borrowers under this subsection.
``(D) Loan duration; interest rates; conditions.--
``(i) Loan duration.--A loan made by the Secretary under
this paragraph shall be for a term not to exceed 20 years.
``(ii) Applicable interest rates.--A loan made by the
Secretary under this paragraph shall bear an annual interest
rate of at least 1 percent.
``(E) Grant amounts.--
``(i) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, each qualified organization that receives a loan
under this paragraph shall be eligible to receive a grant to
provide marketing, management, and technical assistance to
microenterprises in rural areas that are borrowers or
potential borrowers under this subsection.
``(ii) Maximum amount of grant for microenterprise
development organizations.--The amount of the grant referred
to in clause (i) shall be not more than 25 percent of the
total outstanding balance of loans made by the
microenterprise development organization under this paragraph
as of the date of provision of the grant, except that for the
first loan made to a microenterprise development
organization, the Secretary may make a grant not to exceed 25
percent of the outstanding balance of the loan.
``(iii) Matching requirement.--

``(I) In general.--As a condition of any grant made to a
qualified organization under this subparagraph, the Secretary
shall require the organization to expend for the grant
project involved, from non-Federal sources, not less than 15
percent of the total amount of the grant.
``(II) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of a project described in subclause (I) may be
provided--

``(aa) in cash; or
``(bb) in-kind.
``(c) Administrative Expenses.--Not more than 10 percent of
the assistance received by a qualified organization for a
fiscal year under this section may be used to pay
administrative expenses.
``(d) Funding.--
``(1) Mandatory funding.--
``(A) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary shall use to carry out this
section $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012, to remain available until expended.
``(B) Allocation of funds.--Of the amount made available by
subparagraph (A) for each fiscal year--
``(i) not less than $24,000,000 shall be available for use
in carrying out subsection (b)(3); and
``(ii) not less than $16,000,000 shall be available for use
in carrying out subsection (b)(4), of which not more than
$6,000,000 shall be used to support loans.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to
amounts made available under paragraph (1), there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012.''.
In section 231(b)(5)(A) of the Agricultural Risk Protection
Act of 2000, as proposed to be added by section 6027(b)(1) of
the bill--
(1) strike ``10'' and insert ``15'';
(2) insert ``(i)'' after ``benefit'';
(3) strike ``or socially'' and insert ``, (ii) socially'';
and
(4) insert ``, or (iii) an Indian tribe (as defined in
section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b))'' before the period.
In section 6045(g)(1) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002, as proposed to be amended by section
6027(b) of the bill, strike ``$30,000,000'' and insert
``$50,000,000''.

[RESEARCH TITLE]

In section 7310, strike subsections (f) and (g) and insert
the following:
(f) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make
available $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012.
In section 7411, strike subsections (g) and (h) that appear
within quotation marks and insert the following:
``(g) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary shall make available $100,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.''.

[ENERGY TITLE]

Strike section 9013.
At the end of title IX, add the following new section:

SEC. __. VOLUNTARY RENEWABLE FUELS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall establish a program to certify
biomass crops that meet sustainable growing standards
designed to reduce greenhouse gases, protect wildlife
habitat, and protect air, soil, and water quality.
(b) Certification Requirements.--To qualify for
certification under the program established under subsection
(a), a biomass crop shall be inspected and certified as
meeting the standards adopted under subsection (c) by an
inspector referred to in subsection (d).
(c) Production Standards.--The Secretary shall adopt
standards for the certification of biomass crops under
subsection (b) that provide measurement of a numerical
reduction in greenhouse gases and soil and water pollutants,
based upon the recommendations of an advisory committee
jointly established by the Secretary and the Administrator.
(d) Inspectors.--The Secretary shall designate inspectors
that the Secretary determines are qualified to certify
biomass crops under this section to carry out inspections
under subsection (b).
(e) Designation of Certified Products.--A product produced
from a biomass crop that is certified under this section may
be designated as having been produced from a certified
biomass crop if the producer of the product verifies the
product was produced from such crop and the verification
includes a copy of the certification under subsection (b).

[HORTICULTURE TITLE]

At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following new
section:

SEC. __. PESTICIDES.

(a) Recordkeeping and Reporting.--
(1) Amendment.--Section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i-1) is
amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1491. PESTICIDE RECORDKEEPING.

``(a) Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall require certified commercial
applicators and private applicators of pesticides (whether
for general use or restricted use) to maintain--
``(A) records comparable to records maintained by
commercial applicators of pesticides, as required by the
State in which the pesticide is used, or
``(B) if there is no State requirement for the maintenance
of records, records that contain the product and chemical
name, the registration number assigned to the pesticide under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
amount, date and time of application, and location of
application of each such pesticide used in agricultural
production,

for a period of 20 years after the pesticide is used.
``(2) Provision of records to certain persons.--Within 30
days of a pesticide application, a certified commercial
applicator shall provide a copy of records maintained under
paragraph (1) to the person for whom such application was
provided.
``(3) Provision of records to secretary.--Within 30 days of
a pesticide application, a certified commercial applicator or
private applicator shall provide a copy of records maintained
under paragraph (1) to--
``(A) any State agency designated by the State for such
purpose; and
``(B) the Secretary of Agriculture.
``(4) Maintenance by secretary.--
``(A) Requirement.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary of Agriculture shall maintain records submitted to
the Secretary under paragraph (3) for a period of at least 20
years after the pesticide is used.
``(B) Exception.--The Secretary of Agriculture is not
required to maintain records pursuant to subparagraph (A) if
the Secretary determines that the State in which the
pesticide is used will maintain such records for a period of
at least 20 years after such use.
``(b) Access to Records.--
``(1) In general.--Upon request, records maintained under
subsection (a) shall be made available by applicators and by
the Secretary of Agriculture to the following:
``(A) A Federal or State agency that deals with pesticide
use or any health, occupational safety, or environmental
issue related to the use of pesticides.
``(B) Health care professionals treating persons who
reasonably believe that they have been exposed to pesticides.
``(C) Agricultural workers who reasonably believe they have
been exposed to pesticides, their immediate family members,
and their representatives.
``(D) Researchers conducting studies on pesticides,
occupational safety or health, or environmental conditions.
``(2) Agencies.--In the case of Federal agencies, such
access to records maintained under subsection (a) shall be
through the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Secretary's
designee. State agency requests for access to records
maintained under subsection (a) shall be through the lead
State agency so designated by the State.
``(3) Health care personnel.--When a health professional
determines that pesticide information maintained under this
section is necessary to provide medical treatment or first
aid to an individual who may have been exposed to pesticides
for which the information is maintained, upon request
applicators and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promptly
provide applicable records maintained under subsection (a)
and available label information to that health professional.
In the case of an emergency, such records and information
shall be provided immediately.
``(4) Agricultural workers.--When an agricultural worker
reasonably believes he or she has been exposed to pesticides,
upon request applicators and the Secretary of Agriculture
shall provide applicable records maintained under subsection
(a) to such worker, the worker's family member, or the
worker's representative within 5 business days of the
request. In the case of an emergency, such records shall be
provided immediately.

[[Page H8714]]

``(5) Researchers.--When a researcher is conducting a study
on a pesticide, occupational safety or health, or
environmental conditions, upon request applicators and the
Secretary of Agriculture shall provide applicable records
maintained under subsection (a) to such researcher within 30
days of the request.
``(c) Access to Contact Information.--Upon request, the
person for whom a pesticide application was provided shall
provide the name and contact information of the applicator to
a health care professional described in subsection (b)(3) or
an agricultural worker, family member, or representative
described in subsection (b)(4).
``(d) Surveys and Analyses.--Each Federal agency described
in subsection (b)(1)(A) shall conduct surveys and record the
data from individual applicators to facilitate statistical
analysis for environmental and agronomic purposes, but in
reports based on survey data the Federal agency shall not
release data, including the location from which the data was
derived, that would directly or indirectly reveal the
identity of individual producers.
``(e) Penalty.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall be
responsible for the enforcement of subsections (a), (b), and
(c). A violation of subsection (a) or (b) by an applicator,
or a violation of subsection (c) by a person described in
such subsection, shall--
``(1) in the case of the first offense, be subject to a
fine of not more than $ 1,000; and
``(2) in the case of subsequent offenses, be subject to a
fine of not less than $ 2,000 for each violation, except that
the penalty shall be less than $1,000 if the Secretary
determines that the applicator or person made a good faith
effort to comply with such subsection.
``(f) Federal or State Provisions.--The requirements of
this section shall not affect provisions of other Federal or
State laws.
``(g) Surveys and Reports.--The Secretary of Agriculture
and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall survey the records maintained under subsection (a) to
develop and maintain a database that is sufficient to enable
the Secretary and the Administrator to publish comprehensive
reports, at least on an annual basis, concerning agricultural
and nonagricultural pesticide use. The Secretary and
Administrator shall enter into a memorandum of understanding
to define their respective responsibilities under this
subsection in order to avoid duplication of effort. Such
reports shall be transmitted to Congress not later than April
1 of each year.
``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
promulgate revised regulations on their respective areas of
responsibility implementing this section not later than 180
days after the enactment of the NOURISH Act of 2007.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
takes effect on the date that is 180 days after the enactment
of the NOURISH Act of 2007.
(b) Inclusion of Long-Term Adverse Health Effects in
Labeling.--Paragraph (2) of section 2(q) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136(q))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (D)(iii), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) the pesticide is registered for an agricultural use
and its labeling does not include information on long-term
adverse health effects associated with exposure to the
pesticide, such as cancer in individuals so exposed and their
children, birth defects, adverse reproductive effects such as
infertility or still births, and neurological damage.''.
(c) Research by CDC.--
(1) Increased risks among farm workers.--
(A) In general.--The Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention shall conduct or support research on
increased risks of cancer or birth defects among farm workers
who have occupational exposure to pesticide and their
children.
(B) Authorization of appropriations.--To carry out this
paragraph, there is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000
for fiscal year 2008.
(2) Biological indicators and clinical tests.--
(A) In general.--The Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention shall conduct or support research to
identify objective biological indicators, and to develop new
and additional inexpensive clinical tests, to enable
clinicians to diagnose overexposure to pesticides.
(B) Authorization of appropriations.--To carry out this
paragraph, there is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000
for fiscal year 2008.
(d) Research by USDA.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct
or support research on alternatives to agricultural
pesticides that have been associated with cancer, birth
defects, adverse reproductive effects, or severe neurological
disorders in animal studies or epidemiological research.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--To carry out this
subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000
for fiscal year 2008.
(e) Research by EPA.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall conduct or support research to
develop field level tests to determine when pesticide-treated
fields are safe to reenter.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--To carry out this
subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated $7,500,000
for fiscal year 2008.
Section 10301(1) is amended by striking ``$22,000,000'' and
inserting ``$25,000,000''.
Section 10303(f) is amended by striking the text and
inserting the following: ``Of the funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall make available
$50,000.000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to
carry out this section. Such funds shall remain available
until expended.''.
Section 10102 is amended by striking subsection (b) and
inserting the following new subsection:
(b) Availability of Funds.--Subsection (i) of section 101
of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 is amended
to read as follows:
``(i) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make grants
under this section, using--
``(1) $110,000,000 in fiscal year 2008;
``(2) $115,000,000 in fiscal year 2009;
``(3) $120,000,000 in fiscal year 2010;
``(4) $125,000,000 in fiscal year 2011; and
``(5) $145,000,000 in fiscal year 2012.''.
In section 6(f)(1) of the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct
Marketing Act of 1976 (7 U.S.C. 3005), as added by section
10404(b)(4) of the bill, strike ``Secretary of Agriculture
use to carry out this section'' and all that follows and
insert ``Secretary of Agriculture shall use to carry out this
section $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012.''.

[MISCELLANEOUS TITLE]

At the end of subtitle A of title XI add the following new
sections:

SEC. __. SHARE OF RISK.

Section 508(k) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(k)) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting
the following:
``(3) Share of risk.--The reinsurance agreements of the
Corporation with the reinsured companies shall require the
reinsured companies to cede to the Corporation 30 percent of
its cumulative underwriting gain or loss.''

SEC. __. REIMBURSEMENT RATE.

Section 508(k)(4)(A) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)(A)) is amended by striking clause (ii) and
inserting the following:
``(ii) for each of the 2008 and subsequent reinsurance
years, 15 percent of the premium used to define loss
ratio.''.
Subparagraph (D) of section 2501(a)(2) of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
2279(a)(2)), as added by section 11201(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the
bill, is amended to read as follows:
``(D) Additional contracting authority.--Any agency of the
Department of Agriculture may make grants and enter into
contracts and cooperative agreements with a community-based
organization that meets the definition of an eligible entity
under subsection (e) in order to utilize the community-based
organization to provide outreach and technical assistance.''.
Section 2501(a)(4)(A) of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(a)(4)(A)),
as amended by section 11201(a)(1)(C)(i) of the bill, is
amended by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting
``$35,000,000''.
At the end of subtitle C of title XI add the following new
section:

SEC. __. MORATORIUM ON FORECLOSURES.

(a) Moratorium.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall, except
for the purposes referred to in subsection (c), immediately
issue a moratorium on all current, pending, and future
foreclosures, loan accelerations, and adverse actions, with
respect to Department of Agriculture loans to any farm or
ranch owned or operated by a socially disadvantaged farmer or
ranchers (as defined in section 355(e)(2) of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act). The Secretary shall waive
the accrual of interest and offsets on all loans affected by
this section for the full period of the moratorium or review
shall issue write offs of accrued interest and may take such
additional actions as recommended by the Commission
established in subsection (b).
(a) Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers
Commission.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of shall establish in the
Department of Agriculture a commission to be known as the
``USDA Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers
Commission'' (in this section referred to as the
``Commission'').
(2) Duties.--The Commission shall review all actions
covered by the moratorium under subsection (a) to--
(A) determine whether Federal, State, or local government
actions or inactions contributed to the conditions leading to
foreclosure;
(B) determine whether the acceleration of foreclosure by
the Department of Agriculture of loans on farm land owned by
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers was in accordance
with applicable laws or regulations;
(C) improve upon the credibility and accuracy of all
Department of Agriculture programs land foreclosure process
and procedures;
(D) recommend to the Secretary actions for the fair
resolution of cases reviewed; and

[[Page H8715]]

(E) submit to the Committee on Agriculture and the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry and the Committee on Government Reform and
Homeland Security of the Senate a report on programmatic
inefficiencies and possible remedies to address any land loss
directly resulting from illegal or manifestly unfair acts of
the Department of Agriculture.
Strike section 10202 and add at the end of title XI the
following:

SEC. __. MULTI-SPECIES FRUIT FLY RESEARCH AND STERILE FLY
PRODUCTION.

(a) Construction.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
construct a warehouse and irradiation containment facility in
Waimanalo, Hawaii, to support fruit fly rearing and
sterilization activities.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated--
(1) $15,000,000 for the construction of a warehouse and
irradiation containment facility pursuant to subsection (a);
and
(2) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and each subsequent
fiscal year for maintenance to the facilities constructed
pursuant to this section.
Strike section 11305.
At the end of subtitle A of title XI add the following new
section:

SEC. __. PARITY FOR ORGANIC CROP ACRES PRICE ELECTIONS,
DOLLAR AMOUNTS OF INSURANCE, AND PREMIUM
DETERMINATION.

Section 508(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(9) Organics.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, the Secretary may not charge a premium,
deductable, or other fee for an insurance policy or plan on
crops that are certified organic or transitioning to organic
production that is more than the premium, deductable, or
other fee for an insurance policy or plan on crops that are
not certified organic or transitioning to organic
production.''.
At the end of subtitle C of title XI, add the following new
sections:

SEC. __. MCINTIRE-STENNIS COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ACT.

Section 2 of Public Law 87-788 (16 U.S.C. 582a-1) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``and 1890 Institutions,'' before ``and
(b)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``In States that
have both 1862 Institutions and 1890 Institutions eligible
for and receiving funds under this Act, the institutions
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, develop
complementary plans for forestry research in the State. In
this section, the terms `1862 Institutions' and `1890
Institutions' have the same meanings as in section 2 of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601(2)).''.

SEC. __. ANIMAL HEALTH AND DISEASE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

Section 1434(b) of the National Agriculture Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3196(b))
is amended by inserting after ``universities'' the following:
``(including 1890 Institutions (as defined in section 2 of
the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform
Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601(2))).''.

SEC. __. CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
NETWORK (CYFERNET) PROGRAM.

(a) In General.-- In carrying out the Children, Youth, and
Families Education and Research Network Program under section
3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(d)), the Secretary
shall include 1890 Institutions as eligible program
applicants and participants.
(b) 1890 Institutions Defined.--In this section, the term
``1890 Institutions'' has the meaning given the term in
section 2 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601(2)).

SEC. __. SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED PRODUCERS ACCESS PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment; Purpose.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish and carry out, for each of fiscal years 2008
through 2013, a program to enhance the viability of minority
and socially disadvantaged farmer and ranchers who own or
operate agricultural operations by assisting such farmer and
ranchers to reduce their risks, improve their access to
markets, and better utilize the programs and services of the
Department of Agriculture.
(2) Improved access.--One of the purposes of the program
shall be to ensure the viability and success of minority and
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers by promoting the
involvement of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in
the full range of services to ensure producer access to
commodity, credit, risk management and disaster protection,
conservation, marketing, nutrition, value-added, rural
development, and other programs and services of the
Department.
(3) Accurate reflection of contributions.--Another of the
purposes of the program shall be to assure that the number
and economic contributions of socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers are accurately reflected in the census of
agriculture.
(b) Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to participate in programs
made available under this title, a producer shall--
(A) be a socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher;
(B) be a producer who, as an owner, operator, landlord,
tenant, sharecropper or enrolled member of an Indian tribe--
(i) shares in the risk of producing any crop or livestock;
and
(ii) is entitled to share in the crop or livestock
available for marketing from a farm (or would have shared had
the crop or livestock been produced) or produces more than 50
percent of the food needed for family consumption;
(C) enter into a risk management and marker access contract
with the Secretary to carry out the risk management and
market access plan.
(2) Definitions.--In this section:
(A) Socially disadvantaged.--The term ``socially
disadvantaged'' means, with respect to a farmer or rancher,
that the farmer or rancher is a member of a socially
disadvantage group.
(B) Socially disadvantaged group defined.--The term
``socially disadvantaged group'' means a group whose members
have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of
their identity as members of a group without regard to their
individual qualities.
(c) Producer Payment Structure.--
(1) Producer development payments.--The Secretary is
authorized to provide direct payments to the producers
defined under subsection (b) if risk management and market
access plans are implemented within any fiscal year pursuant
to a plan developed in a fiscal year prior to payment by the
Secretary.
(2) Enrollment procedure.--To enroll in this program, an
eligible producer must--
(A) complete and maintain the practices in the
qualification level in paragraph (3)(A)(i);
(B) describe the tier of the risk management and market
access plan, and the particular risk management and market
access practices to be implemented in accordance with this
subsection; and
(C) identify the qualified technical assistance provider
who will serve as a liaison to the Department and supply
technical assistance to assure completion of the plan.
(3) Payment structure.--The Secretary shall make annual
producer payments under this title for participation at 1 of
the following levels for a period not to exceed a total of 7
years, as follows:
(A) USDA access payments.--The qualification level payment
shall be not more than $5,000 with up to $2,500 paid up front
if, within the first year, the producer--
(i) files an IRS schedule F or a qualified substitute for
enrolled members of Indian Tribes;
(ii) registers at the Farm Service Agency office as a farm
or rancher, or informs the Secretary the reason for which
registration was not allowed;
(iii) signs up for any crop insurance or NAP programs for
which the producer is qualified, or provides a plan to
achieve qualification or inform the Secretary if no plan or
program exists for the form of production on the farm or
ranch; and
(iv) receives technical assistance to be included in the
Minority Farm Registry and complete the next Census of
Agriculture.

The Secretary shall provide to the National Agriculture
Statistics Service information sufficient for inclusion of
each producer who qualifies under this section in the next
census of agriculture.
(B) Program access payments.--Program access payments shall
at least $5000 and not more than $10,000 annually for up to 3
years if the producer provides, develops, and implements a
plan to complete at least two of following practices in each
year:
(i) a farm and home plan;
(ii) an estate plan;
(iii) a risk management plan, including accessing family
health insurance;
(iv) a conservation plan;
(v) enters into a contract for purchase or sale of farm
land;
(vi) acquires a computer, high-speed internet access, and
software, and training in the use of these tools;
(vii) prepares a plan to transition to another crop or
crops;
(viii) applies for at least one farm program of the
Department; or
(ix) other practices as determined by the Secretary.
(C) Market access and risk protection payments.--
(i) Tier one.--Market Access and Risk Protection Payments
shall be at least $10,000 and not more than $25,000 annually
for up to three years if the producer develops and implements
at least two of the following practices in each year:

(I) Mentor another farmer.
(II) Seek nomination and election to a Conservation
District Board or FSA County Committee.
(III) Meet standards for Good Agricultural Practices,
Organic Certification or other market certifications.
(IV) Develop and implement a marketing plan or a business
plan.
(V) Access liability or other expanded insurance, including
revenue insurance.
(VI) Access farmers markets or improved marketing
contracts.
(VII) Participate in farmers market nutrition, school food
or other nutrition programs.
(VIII) Develop and implement plan to meet regulatory
requirements, including labor, workers compensation, and
pesticide health and safety standards, Livestock and Animal
ID.

[[Page H8716]]

(IX) Seek irrigation and other production assistance, Land
or waste management.
(X) Other practices as determined by the Secretary.

(iii) Tier two.--Market Access and Risk Protection Payments
shall be not more than to $35,000 annually for up to three
years if the producer completes at least two of the following
practices in each year:

(I) Develop or participate in a cooperative or marketing
association.
(II) Develop a value-added enterprise.
(III) Implements improve marketing strategies, including
development of brands and innovative forms of marketing by
web or other means.
(IV) Develop infrastructure or processing capacity.
(V) Enhance the participation of a cooperative or a group
of farmers in nutrition and health programs.
(VI) Construct or improve housing for farmworkers.
(VII) Enter into direct contracts to secure adequate labor
to meet production needs.
(VIII) Protect of land use and development rights.
(IX) Other practices as determined by the Secretary.

(d) Technical Assistance.--
(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2008 through
2013, the Secretary shall provide technical assistance
through qualified technical assistance providers to producers
for the development and implementation of a risk management
and market access plans at each tier.
(2) Technical assistance provider.--In this section, the
term ``technical assistance provider'' is an organization or
educational institutions that qualifies as an eligible entity
under section 2501(e)(5) of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(e)(5)).
(3) Qualified technical assistance provider.--In this
section, the term ``qualified technical assistance provider''
means a technical assistance provider that has been
recognized by the Risk Management Agency as qualified to
provide the service in this program.
(4) Limitations.--A qualified technical service provider
shall not receive payment for services in excess of--
(A) $2,000, for services under subsection (c)(3)(A);
(B) $3,000, for services under subsection (c)(3)(B); or
(C) $4,000, for services under subsection (c)(3)(C).
(f) Duties of the Secretary.--
(1) Office of small farms coordination.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall establish an office of Small Farm
Coordination, which shall be led by the Small Farms
Coordinator, who shall be a career employee.
(2) Duties.--The Secretary may delegate to the Small Farms
Coordinator responsibility for the following:
(A) Administering the program established under subsection
(a).
(B) Administering the activities established under
Departmental Regulation 9700-1 issued on August 3, 2006, in
coordination with any other office, agency, or mission area
as deemed necessary by the Secretary to facilitate the
implementation of the programs under this section, and other
such duties as assigned to assure the Department best
understands, meets, and prioritizes the needs of small,
socially disadvantaged, and beginning and new entry farmers.
(C) Other duties deemed appropriate by the Secretary.
(3) Outreach.--The Secretary shall use not less than
$1,000,000 annually from funding under this section to
support consultation, training, and liaison activities with
qualified technical assistance providers under subsection
(b).
(4) Staffing and administration.--The Secretary shall
provide not less than 10 staff positions within the Office of
Small Farms Coordination at headquarters in Washington and
not less than 10 field staff for the Office as the Secretary
deems necessary to implement this program, with additional
field staff provided in States where the number of applicants
exceeds 500 to conduct administration of this program.
(5) Regulations.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
promulgate regulations to carry out this subsection.
(g) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, the Secretary shall make available $80,000,000
to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008
through 2012.
At the end of title XI, insert the following new section:

SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON USE OF SAVINGS FOR DEFICIT
REDUCTION.

It is the sense of the Congress that any budgetary savings
created as a result of this Act will be used to reduce the
Federal budget deficit and not used to offset other Federal
spending.
Strike the title of the bill entitled ``PREVENTION OF TAX
TREATY EXPLOITATION TO EVADE UNITED STATES TAXATION''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for purposes of
this debate that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) be allowed to
control 10 minutes of my 20 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, this farm bill is one of the most important pieces of
legislation before this Congress in this session because it truly does
affect us all.

{time} 2100

It affects our family farmers. It affects consumers in America. It
affects our wildlife and natural resources. It affects people who are
hungry, both in this country and abroad, and it affects economic
development opportunities in rural America but also in the developing
world, and it affects my home State in Wisconsin, where agriculture is
still the number one industry. I know, I have a 200-acre farm in
western Wisconsin where we rotate corn and soybeans. I've got beef
cattle on it from time to time.
But for too long farm policy has resulted in billions of dollars of
subsidies going to a few, but very large and very wealthy entities who
then gobble up family farms around them, drive up land values and make
it virtually impossible for new beginning farmers to enter the
business. These subsidies have distorted the marketplace, and they
distort our trade policies. Too many farmers have planted for the
government paycheck instead of the marketplace. This has got to change.
But instead of heeding the call for reasonable, justifiable reform in
light of current market prices, the farm bill before us fails to even
make token reforms under the Title I commodity programs. In fact, they
still allow taxpayer-supported subsidies to go to individuals in this
country with an adjusted gross income of $1 million. Over the next 5
years, there will be $26 billion in direct subsidy payments going out
to commodity producers who are getting at or near record prices in the
marketplace. And under these direct payments, the committee raises the
cap from $40,000 to $60,000 and allows multiple entities on the same
farm to collect the same type of subsidies. It also eliminates the cap
with the loan deficiency program.
It's a missed opportunity. In fact, what we have before us today is a
bipartisan, fair, reform amendment that takes light of the market
conditions and offers reasonable and justifiable reforms under a very
simple proposition: Let's give our family farmers help when they need
it; let's not when they don't.
What we propose in our amendment would be phasing out these direct
payments that were meant to be temporary in the 1996 farm bill, and now
we're in the third farm bill, and they're increasing these subsidy
payments and lifting the caps.
We also replace the current countercyclical program with a true
safety net, a revenue-based safety net that even the corn growers have
been working on as a replacement over the last few years.
We also place a tighter income limit at $250,000 adjusted gross, even
slightly above the administration's own $200,000 limit that they
recommend.
Plus, we call for long-overdue reform with the crop insurance program
based on the good work that our friends Mr. Cooper and Mr. Waxman have
been doing in this, and we all do this under justifiable market
conditions, ending up with a farm bill at the end of the day that does
not distort our market, nor our trade policies.
For too long family farmers have suffered due to the inequities of
this farm bill, and with the savings that we use to reform the Title I
programs, we make significant new investments in other priority areas.
We have a $6 billion increase in funding under the nutrition title to
deal with hunger in America.
We have a $3 billion increase of voluntary incentive conservation
programs, when today three out of every four farmers applying for
conservation funding assistance are turned away because of inadequacy
of funds.
We have a $1.2 billion increase for specialty crops above what the
committee did, and a healthy food program to combat the obesity
epidemic which is ravishing our Nation.

[[Page H8717]]

We also have $1.1 billion in guaranteed funding out of the McGovern-
Dole bill and $500 million for minority and disadvantaged farmers, $200
million increase for rural development to create economic job
opportunities throughout rural America.
And at the end of the reform, we even have money for deficit
reduction. How refreshing that we may have a bill coming out of this
Congress that actually reforms enough to have some left over to reduce
the massive budget deficits and prepare for the aging of our Nation.
What's really nice about this is it is all paid for. We don't have to
go to the Ways and Means Committee or the Financial Services Committee
to seek offsets in order to pay for these other priorities and still
provide a safety net for our family farmers. This amendment gets us out
of the box that my Republican friends find themselves in in not being
able to support a tax increase to finance this farm bill.
And you guys are exactly right. If you had been pulling this on us
while we were in the minority, we would be raising bloody hell as well,
because if you lose the process in the place, you lose a sense of
fairness, and if you don't have fairness at the end of the day, you
can't get things done.
We're saying we don't have to go down that road. Let's make some
commonsense reforms to find the offsets to deal with the other
priorities while still maintaining a proper safety net so when the
farmers are in trouble, if market prices plummet, there will be a
safety net for them; but let's not do it when they don't need it, so we
can go home and look the taxpayers in the eyes and justify exactly what
we're doing here.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) be permitted to
control half the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize
the gentlelady from South Dakota, a great member of our committee, Ms.
Herseth Sandlin, for 1 minute.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment because it eviscerates
the safety net for my constituents and destroys the delicate balance
achieved in the committee bill which reflects significant and
meaningful reform and is supported by the broadest coalition of
stakeholders.
I believe that the bill has been unfairly characterized by the
gentleman from Wisconsin in a number of ways, but just as one example,
how can there be no reform in the commodity title when in this bill,
the committee bill, there's a 43 percent reduction in the commodity
title and a 32.3 percent increase in the commodity title?
But if you don't believe me, consider who has endorsed this amendment
offered by Mr. Kind and Mr. Flake: Club for Growth, long advocated to
eliminate farm payment programs and destroy the safety net; and the
Bush administration, who long opposed disaster assistance for farmers
and ranchers devastated by natural disaster, long opposed the mandatory
country of origin labeling program. Both Club for Growth and the Bush
administration prioritize multinational corporations' international
trading interests just like the administration is now supporting
foreign companies who avoid paying U.S. taxes over my constituents.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, let me just say before yielding to the
gentleman from Wisconsin, the drop in 40 percent that is claimed by the
committee is actually taking credit for high prices of corn and other
commodities. There's no cut at all. So this is not reform.
Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment for a number of reasons. Number one, it's high time we reform
our agricultural programs which are Depression-era. This is a modest
amendment from the original aggressive reforms. It puts in place the
reforms that the USDA experts said that we ought to put in place for
the safety net.
Let me just address what the safety net really is. Should we or
should we not give million-dollar checks to farmers making $1 million?
Should we have a farm program that helps the family farmer at a time
when they're struggling? Should those payments go to farmers when
they're making record high prices, when they're doing well? Or should
these programs go to them when they're hurting? That's what this
amendment does.
This amendment also pays for itself; no budget gimmicks, no timing
shift, no tax increases. It actually reduces the deficit by $2 billion
in 5 years and $14 billion over 10. It actually boosts conservation. It
actually boosts nutrition.
Let me just address the payment limit. This bill right here says we
will allow farmers to have aggregate program payments that are at least
12 times the poverty rate. Isn't that high enough? The average poverty
rate for a family of four is $20,500. This amendment says let's allow
the farm payment to a family of four be as high as a quarter of a
million dollars. Yet the committee's bill says, no, that's not good
enough. It has to be unlimited in some senses or a million-dollar AGI
for others.
Madam Chairman, let's get our priorities straight. Lets have a farm
bill that doesn't distort our trade posture in the international
community. If we pass the base bill, it hurts us internationally to get
better trade agreements and open markets for our farmers. If we pass
the base bill, it hurts us from helping people in the developing world
lift their lives out of poverty.
If you vote for the Kind-Flake amendment, you will help us
internationally open markets to farmers, you will preserve a modern
safety net that helps farmers when they need it and the family farmers
when they need it, and you will save money for the taxpayer, you will
put savings in nutrition, you will put savings in conservation, and you
will help reduce the deficit.
This is a responsible amendment. It's a responsible bill. It is the
right way forward, and this is what really, truly, needy family farms
need. We don't need to be cutting checks in the seven-figure range for
people with AGIs, adjusted gross incomes, of $1 million. We need to say
12 times the poverty rate's enough. That's what we need to say, and by
voting for this amendment, that's what we are saying.
Help the family farmer, help conservation, help nutrition and reduce
the deficit. Vote for this amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Chairman, I'll say one good thing about this amendment offered
by the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Arizona: It
doesn't raise taxes. But I'll say nothing else good about it because it
rips the safety net out from under America's farmers and ranchers.
The House Agriculture Committee bill is the result of careful
consideration. The committee reviewed many options and took the
testimony of countless witnesses at hearings in Washington and in
multiple States. The committee chose to maintain a safety net that has
proven very effective since 2002, but it's done so with reform.
The committee included in the safety net the option for producers to
choose a priority of the administration, a revenue-based,
countercyclical program.
The committee also drastically modified rules related to payment
limits and income levels for participation. No one with a 3-year
average gross adjusted income over $1 million may participate in the
commodity program. That is down from $2.5 million for producers with
AGI between $500,000 and $1 million; 66\2/3\ percent of their income
must come from agriculture. These are major changes from the 2002 farm
bill.
Additionally, the committee has done away with the three-entity rule.
Now producers can receive payments on only one business entity.
The committee made significant reforms. By cutting $16 billion over 5

[[Page H8718]]

years, a 40 percent cut, this amendment shatters the farm safety net.
This amendment cuts the safety net provided by direct payments by about
$11 billion over 5 years, or 42 percent.
The amendment cuts the most basic level of support for farmers and
ranchers, the marketing assistance loan, by $2 billion over 5 years,
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The committee was able to make significant increases in conservation,
nutrition, rural development, research, fruits and vegetables, and in
other areas without ripping out the safety net from America's farmers
and ranchers, but the Kind-Flake-Ryan-Blumenauer amendment makes
increases in those areas at the expense of American farmers.
The committee's commitment to conservation is unquestionable. The
committee-passed bill increases conservation spending by over $4
billion over the next 5 years. We added over $1.9 billion to
environmental quality incentive programs, which helps farmers and
ranchers comply with State, Federal and local environmental laws.
We also continued our commitment to highly erodible land, wetlands,
grasslands and wildlife habitat by funding the Conservation Reserve
Program, the Wetland Reserve Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program,
and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.
The committee increased the commitment to preserving working farms by
increasing funding to the Farmland Ranchland Protection Program by
almost 300 percent.
The committee also focused efforts to help producers such as
specialty crop and livestock producers who do not participate in
traditional commodity programs.
We took an unprecedented step of committing $150 million over the
next 5 years to help clean up the rivers of the Chesapeake Bay.
We do not need this amendment. Oppose it.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, just to give you an indication of how
effective the current safety net is, it was recently discovered there
was $1.1 billion in subsidy payments that went out to farmers who had
already passed away.
Now, I want to recognize for 2 minutes a champion of family farmers
and an advocate for reasonable, justifiable reform, my friend from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
courtesy. I appreciate his leadership. Along with our friend from
Arizona and from Wisconsin, we have before you a real opportunity to
make a difference.
Now, my heart goes out to the committee. They had a tough job. They
went, I think, as far as they could, given the dynamics they had. Some
of the things they did I strongly support and, in fact, have worked
for. Those good items are now all protected under our initiative. In
fact, many of them are actually enhanced.

{time} 2115

They are enhanced not by throwing money at it, but by actually having
real reform; not talking about reform, not moving towards reform, but
actually doing it. Our bipartisan amendment is paid for, and it does so
by helping most farmers.
My State of Oregon is an example. Under this initiative, we will gain
more than $140 million in every congressional district over the life of
this effort. We do this not by new taxes and new programs; we change
the dynamic. No longer will 80 percent of America's farmers and
ranchers get little or nothing. No longer will we have, in this case, a
sham, I'm sorry to say, payment limitation that will only affect one-
tenth of a percent of America's farmers, those who are at $1 million,
it will only save $45 million, which shows you that it doesn't have
much impact.
I would say that any farmer who can't get their adjusted gross income
under $1 million probably needs to look for a new CPA, not a new
subsidy. We stop the lunacy in a time of record high corn prices. We
are going to give them 10 more billion dollars. If we don't give them
10 more billion dollars in a time of record high corn prices, we are
going to shred the safety net? I would argue, not. Have a real limit,
help the budget, and, most important, help America's family farmers.
Pass this amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I recognize Chairman
Etheridge for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kind-Flake
amendment.
The sponsors of this amendment like to argue that passage of the
amendment would help pave the way for new trade agreements. That is
naive thinking.
Our trade negotiators are engaged in WTO trade talks in a bid to open
up foreign markets for U.S. agriculture products and reduce, if not
eliminate, trade distorting foreign subsides. The cuts in the farm
safety net that the Kind-Flake amendment impose are tantamount to
unilateral disarmament.
During the Cold War, we would never have cut our military strength
without first extracting similar if not greater reductions from the
Soviets. We should do no less in today's trade negotiations.
Cutting our farm support will not lead to a WTO agreement. As the
current negotiations have shown, any time the United States gives a
little on its trade position, our trading partners ask us to give more.
Trying to create a farm bill that will please a WTO negotiator from
another country is the wrong approach. The farm bill is for helping
U.S. farmers.
Who supports the Kind-Flake amendment, groups who mistakenly believe
that unilateral cuts will spark a trade deal.
Who opposes the Kind-Flake amendment, farm and commodity groups
across the nation.
When it comes to farm policy, I am going to stand with the farmers. I
urge my colleagues to oppose the Kind-Flake amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), a great member of
our committee.
Mr. COSTA. Madam Chairman, I want to thank you and the ranking member
and the members of the committee for the hard work on a bipartisan
basis that really produced, I think, a good product.
Unfortunately, I have to rise against the Kind amendment, not because
it does involve reform, but I think it involves reform in a way that
uses a meat ax and does not provide transition for American farmers,
something I think I know something about.
You see, I represent a third-generation farm family that has been
farming in the San Joaquin Valley since the turn of the 19th, early
20th century. What this bill does, what this amendment does, if it were
to be enacted, is not provide the level of nutrition or research and
competitiveness for food safety and conservation that the underlying
bill has, which is why I support the underlying bill, because it
provides real reform. It provides nutrition. It provides the efforts to
make American farmers more competitive on a global basis with global
markets, provides reform in a host of areas.
Ladies and gentlemen, I urge that you vote for the underlying bill.
Vote against the Kind amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, let me just say that the direct payments
were never intended as a safety net. They were meant to wean farmers
off of the dole. If our parents worked as hard as this committee in
weaning their children, we would all still be living in our parents'
basement. It doesn't work to continue and continue and continue on with
this.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank our colleagues
for their crusade in offering real reform for the American people. I am
proud to be a part of this unique coalition of Members in support of
this amendment.
Why is a Member representing a suburban area of Seattle taking such
an interest in the farm bill? The farm bill isn't just for farmers.
It's funded by and affects every one of us across America.
The underlying bill leaves American farmers and businesses open to
challenges from the World Trade Organization. Trade is critical,
crucial to our State and our farmers. One in three jobs in Washington
State is linked to trade. This amendment is a critical

[[Page H8719]]

step to bringing us into trade compliance so that our farmers and
businesses have access to markets around the world.
Currently, 19 congressional districts receive 50 percent of Federal
farm subsidies; 348 congressional districts would benefit positively
from this amendment. Every district in my State would benefit. The
Washington Post referred to farm subsidies as Federal giveaways that
cost all Americans but benefit few.
This amendment funds many other American priorities; $1.2 billion to
promote healthy food choices, $3 billion more to conservation programs,
and $1 billion more to support fruit and vegetable producers.
This amendment saves money, brings us closer to trade compliance. It
does all this without raising taxes. In fact, it saves taxpayers $2
billion.
We can't continue business as usual. Our taxpayers deserve an
equitable balance. The time is now for reform.
I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind
amendment.
This amendment, I believe, is a threat to producers, consumers and
rural America. We must do everything we can to defeat this amendment.
The amendment destroys the commodity title, in essence, as we know it.
I know it's not as strong as the language they started out with a few
days ago, but it starts us down that trail. By cutting the direct
payments by 42 percent, by completely revealing, in effect, the
counter-cyclical program, this is completely unacceptable and would do
more harm to production agriculture than anything I can think of.
We in agriculture understand that the commodity title is much more
than just producers. It's about providing the American consumer with
the highest quality, the safest supply of food and fiber in the history
of the world.
We have done that. In fact, we in the United States have the most
affordable food supply in the world. We Americans spend 10 percent of
our disposable income on food, while other countries spend as much as
51 percent on their food.
This is no accident. This is because we have created sound
agricultural policy over the last 75 years. We have had 10 good years
of agriculture policy in particular. We need to continue to build on
that. If we can't, well, if we gut the foundation that we have created
in past farm bills, then ultimately not only will rural America suffer
for this, the American consumer will suffer for this, with higher
prices, instability in supply, and that role that we have occupied for
a century as the grainery, the reserve food stock for the world, will
be gone.
I think, I believe, my colleagues are sincere in what they do. But
sometimes sincerity does not generate clear, thoughtful, practical
policy. Reject their version of sincerity. Let's focus on the policy
that has delivered so much to the American consumer and rural America.
Reject this amendment.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, 5 years ago, when we passed
the Freedom to Farm Act, we were promised that it would clean up the
subsidy programs that really dated back to the era of the Depression.
It didn't. In fact, in many ways it made matters worse. I don't think
we can wait another 5 years before we have fundamental reform.
The fact is that back in the 1930s, 25 percent of our population
lived on farms. Today it's less than 2 percent. Today, corn, cotton,
wheat, rice and soybeans count for 90 percent of our government
commodity payments, and yet it leaves fruits and vegetables, which
represent two-thirds of farm sales, ineligible for support. The largest
farms that comprise only 3 percent of the total farms get the vast
majority of crop subsidies today.
It just seems to me that it's time for fundamental reform that more
fairly distributes the benefits of this program to all of America's
deserving farms and families. That's why I support the Kind amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), one of our great new members of
the committee.
Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Kind amendment and
in opposition to any amendment trying to destroy the farm bill.
My family still farms the same land that my ancestors settled back
150 years ago. As one of only a few ranchers and farmers in Congress, I
know a thing or two about agriculture. The farm bill provides a much-
deserved safety net for our farmers, but it also provides a much-needed
safety net for American citizens.
On this bumper sticker it says ``Not everyone farms, but everyone
eats.'' The Kind amendment will make it even more difficult for our
Nation's farmers and ranchers to stay in business, forcing us to rely
on foreign production to feed our growing Nation. Do you really want to
rely on other countries to produce our food? Look at the trouble we
have gotten into for relying on other countries for the oil that we
need. I, for one, would not want to buy or feed my children food
harvested in China.
I ask my colleagues to vote against the Kind amendment. Please keep
America safe and sound.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, I rise tonight as one who typically comes to this
floor to champion the cause of fiscal conservatism. But tonight,
perhaps more importantly, I come here as the grandson of a farmer. I
come here as the son of a farmer. I come here as one who grew up
working on the family farm.
I have looked at the work of Mr. Flake and Mr. Kind, and I believe
that this amendment is the one that is best for agriculture, and I
think it is the one that is best for taxpayers. I don't like everything
in this amendment. There is a lot I don't like about it. But I have got
to ask myself, does it take me in a direction I want to go or does it
take me in a direction I don't want to go? I think this work takes me
in the direction I want to go, because it provides real reform. If you
have got a program that's costing taxpayers $20 billion a year, maybe
you need some reform.
If 10 percent of the recipients are receiving 33 percent of the egg,
maybe you need some reform. If most of the subsidies are going to
commercial farmers that have average incomes above $200,000, maybe you
need some real reform.
Very importantly, for the agriculture producers in the Fifth District
of Texas, our future is in exports. We want to export good Texas beef,
and I'm afraid the committee bill is going to hurt trade. It will hurt
trade.
We need to support this alternative.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Madam Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to the Kind-Flake
amendment.
We are looking at a time where we have concerns about trade. We have
to realize that cutting direct payments raids our most WTO-compliant
and nondistorting mechanism that stabilizes the United States
agriculture and rural economies. These direct payments are decoupled
from production.
Some people don't know this, but they do not encourage
overproduction. This amendment would weaken us in our position in trade
negotiations through a unilateral disarmament on agriculture policy.
I really believe that this threatens the long-term viability and
competitiveness of U.S. agriculture in a global marketplace still
characterized by subsidized foreign competition and continued trade
barriers. In rural America, this would reduce our land values, our tax
base, and cause potential disruptions and collateral for our farm
loans.
Immediately, we would see farm equity disappear. The Americans have
expectations of a safe, affordable food supply. Oppose the Kind-Flake
amendment.

[[Page H8720]]

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to an advocate of much-
overdue reform of the crop insurance program, the gentleman from
Tennessee, my good friend, Mr. Cooper.
Mr. COOPER. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chairman, for anyone interested in reforming crop insurance,
there are two ways to do it tonight. This way through comprehensive
agriculture reform, the Kind amendment, is probably the best way to do
it. But there will be another way to do it later on. We need to reform
crop insurance.
Everyone who has studied it realizes it. The question is when. I
suggest the time is now, because there are literally billions of
dollars of corporate welfare we can and must be saving starting
tonight. These 16 companies, there are only 16 companies, made $2.8
billion, at taxpayer expense, profit in the last 5 years. It's an
outrageous system once you look into it.
The GAO and others discovered that 40 cents of every dollar that is
supposed to go to the farmer, in fact, goes to the insurance middleman.
This is not right. We need to get more money to the farmers, not less.
Let's reform the crop insurance system. The Kind amendment is the right
way to do it. Another way to do it will be the Cooper amendment.
Support the Kind amendment.

{time} 2130

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize
the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney), one of our
great new members of the committee, for 1 minute.
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Chairman, as a freshman Member of this
Congress and someone who until this past January had never held
political office, I came to Washington determined to change the culture
of this august body. I believed that we could work together and, in
doing so, put the interests of the American people over the political
interests of party or the special interests of powerful lobbyists.
Just a few days ago at a press conference, I proudly stood and
thanked my Republican colleagues in supporting a bill that clearly was
a victory for American agriculture. It was a victory for our growers
and ranchers; it was a victory for the people of Okeechobee, Lake
Placid, Moore Haven, and Clewiston, Florida. This morning I awoke and
found out that my Republican colleagues had changed their minds because
the President of the United States again wanted to play politics. This
is not about a tax increase. This is about politics.
As a businessman who, for 30 years, ran businesses around the globe,
I am incensed that my colleagues would hurt the American farmer by
lying to the American people and call closing a tax loophole for
foreign companies and giving them an unfair advantage over our own
businesses a tax increase. But silly me, why should I have been
surprised? They are the party of special interests, Halliburton, Big
Oil, and now they are the party of big foreign corporations.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to tell the
gentleman from Florida this is the party of American jobs, of American
investment, of American workers. And we are going to protect that by
not supporting tax increases that will cause a disincentive for
investment in this country, that will cost jobs, that will involve the
violation of American treaties, and will cause retaliation in foreign
countries where we will face increased taxes on American investment
there as well. This is a tax increase, pure and simple, and that is why
we will not turn our backs on the American people and their jobs.
At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Neugebauer).
(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chairman, I rise tonight in strong opposition
to the Kind amendment. The Kind amendment may be kind to someone, but
it is not to American farm families.
You see, what is happening in America today is that we have already
asked American farm families to make a reduction. Mr. Kind wants to
reduce farm payments 40 percent. Well, that is on top of the 50 percent
that they have already been reduced.
For America to be competitive in the global marketplace, farmers and
ranchers all across America have had to get larger. To be competing in
this global economy, the efficiencies of running $150,000 farm
machinery across small acreages is no longer feasible. And yet what Mr.
Kind and his friends want to do is to make American agriculture not
competitive.
You see, to be competitive in this world, you have to find economic
efficiencies, and these efficiencies have meant that many producers
have had to get larger. And as they are trying to compete in a global
marketplace where in many cases they are locked out because of trade
restraints in these other countries, now we want to say to the American
ranchers and farmers: Don't be efficient. Don't be competitive in this
global marketplace. We want to take away the ability for you to be
sustained in a global marketplace.
That is not good policy for any business. We don't do that in any
other area of our government today. We don't say to American companies,
why don't you all get small and inefficient? We don't tell them to do
that. We say, get strong and efficient. And yet the Kind amendment
wants to say to American farmers don't be efficient.
I urge members not to support the Kind amendment.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind amendment.
This amendment will reduce the safety net for U.S. farmers and result
in a less secure and more expensive food supply for Americans.
There has been a lot of discussion about the need for ``reform'' in
farm programs. I suggest the so-called reformers out there get better
acquainted with the facts:
First, the portion of spending in the 2007 Farm Bill that goes to
farm commodity programs has declined by half, to 14 percent of the
spending in the bill. In the 2002 Farm Bill, the share of spending for
commodities was 28 percent.
Second, in 2002, commodity programs were projected to cost $94
billion over 5 years. As the 2002 Farm Bill comes to a close, actual
spending will come in $21 billion less.
Finally, because spending has been lower and is projected to stay
low, the cost projection for the next 10 years for farm commodity
programs is down nearly $60 billion compared to 2002.
Farm programs have worked as intended, providing support when prices
are low and pulling back when prices are high, as most currently are.
Maintaining the farm safety net has a reasonable cost.
Farm programs are the only area in H.R. 2419 in which spending is
down. On top of these reductions, the Ag Committee took the additional
step of reforming farm program payment policies and crop Insurance.
The Kind amendment doesn't save any money. It simply puts what it
cuts from farm programs into expanding other spending.
A final reason for not cutting these programs off: maintaining U.S.
leverage in trade negotiations.
U.S. farmers' and ranchers' exports are currently shut out of markets
around the world. Without a significant market access agreement in the
WTO Doha round negotiations, U.S. producers will continue to be at a
disadvantage. The only leverage our negotiators have to gain new market
access is to offer to change farm programs.
If Congress unilaterally reduces farm programs through the Kind
amendment, our negotiators' efforts to gain market access are
completely undercut and will be ineffective.
Support U.S. farmers and consumers and oppose the Kind amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. The Kind-Flake Fairness in Farm and Food Policy amendment
is one of the most remarkable developments in this Congress in years.
This is real bipartisan reform in a major area of our government,
agriculture.
As a Republican I have been astonished with the absolute fixation my
own party has had on the Depression-era price-guarantee program. As an
observer of Democrats, I have been astonished with their willingness to
support a big-business-favored program.
The Kind-Flake substitute brings us into the modern age. It helps
farmers, it helps consumers, it helps taxpayers. I am so proud to have
the opportunity to speak in favor of it.
This bipartisan amendment would replace depression-era price
guarantees with a modern revenue-based safety net developed by
Department of Agriculture (USDA) experts that better protects family
farmers from declines in crop prices and crop yields.

[[Page H8721]]

The bill also reforms our government-subsidized crop insurance
program to fairly share the costs and risks of this program with crop
insurance agents and companies, and gradually reduce direct payments.
The amendment invests some of these savings in new conservation,
nutrition and specialty crop and minority farmer priorities.
The remaining savings are dedicated to deficit reduction of $2
billion over five years, and at least $10 billion over 10 years.
A unique coalition of members and advocacy groups from both sides of
the aisle have united to advocate for these reforms to commodity
programs to make them more equitable and geared toward family farms
instead of a very few large and wealthy entities.
The bottom line is, we need new farm and food policies, and we have
it in this Kind/Flake fairness in Form & Food Policy Amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support this Fairness Amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I recognize myself for 1
minute.
This so-called reform bill, we just got the CBO score. First of all,
it changes the payment limits based on the 2002 bill. So, the effect of
this bill is to have no limitation on payments at all, number one.
We are writing a 10-year baseline, not a 5-year bill. This bill cuts
conservation 37\1/2\ percent below our baseline over 10 years. It
actually takes less out of crop insurance by 13.5 percent compared to
our bill over 10 years. And this is what happens when people aren't on
the Agriculture Committee and get involved in this very complex area.
If this is a reform bill, if this is freedom to farm, we would have a
heck of a mess in farm country.
So we just got this score. We wish we could have got this out
earlier. We got it about 2 hours ago, and I just want people to know
what this bill actually does. It does not do what some people have been
saying.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I
support his amendment because it does bring both fairness to the
American farmer and also to the American taxpayer, and it does so by
dispelling certain myths that are out there.
This program started in 1933 as an emergency program that was
supposed to be temporary. Well, 70, 80 years later and this temporary
program is still with us. It started out as a program that was supposed
to be for the small farmers, like we have in the State of New Jersey
still, actually, and yet we find that three-quarters of the farmers are
getting 10 percent of the program. The small farmers are just getting a
slice of it. It is supposed to be going out for the small farmers and
the farmers who are only making a small income, to help the family
farm, yet we see that the average income of these farmers for the large
sales are making $199,000.
This amendment helps to dispel the myth to make sure that we get a
program that actually helps the family farmer and helps the American
taxpayer at the same time. I support the amendment of the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. I thank Mr. Goodlatte for yielding.
The subcommittee rejected this bill's predecessor on a 0-18 vote.
There were no hearings on this activity. We have already heard the
chairman say that the unintended consequences just of the scoring of
this has not been done.
This speaks to the fallacy of coming to this body tonight with a
policy that is as broad and important for America as farm policy and to
try to fix it with 20 minutes of debate on each side. It is just
nonsense. This did not go through any hearings. We had field hearings,
we had committee hearings, we had testimony from experts, we had
testimony from producers throughout this process. And while that may
have come to a result they don't like, it at least came to a result
that has broad support.
This process that they are bringing to us tonight should be subjected
to the same scrutiny, to the same opportunity to look at what it does
and what it does not do that all of the farm bill that we are looking
at tonight does. They have not done that, and they have a lot of
unintended consequences, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kind
amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, may I ask the time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. Let me just pay tribute first to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for the hard work in bringing this amendment and
being the lead sponsor to the floor.
It strikes me that the committee in this case, as the saying goes, is
traipsing down a flower-strewn path unpricked by the thorns of reason.
We are running headlong, whether we like it or not, into
international trade agreements that will not coexist with the status
quo bill. We cannot move forward and maintain the access we have to
world markets or increase access to other world markets with this bill.
We simply can't. Nor can we maintain the fiscal burden carrying this
forward.
We need a real reform bill, a reform bill that really looks out for
family farms, as opposed to protecting those who are gobbling up family
farms. That is what this reform bill is all about.
Members of this body have wanted an opportunity to vote for a bill
that doesn't increase taxes, that has real reform. This is that chance.
This is the amendment. This is the chance to actually do that.
We need real reform, reform that allows us to go forward, that allows
the American farmer to actually become independent and independently
competitive globally. The status quo bill, the committee bill, just
doesn't do that. It doesn't cut direct payments. As much as we have
heard that tonight, it doesn't. High prices have done that. There is no
cut in direct payments at all here. Only prices have done that.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize
my good friend, the distinguished member from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for
1 minute.
Mr. BERRY. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. I can't say enough
good things about the wonderful work he has done as chairman of this
committee. He can be forever proud of the way he has brought the real
bill together.
It is an interesting thing that the people that have risen in support
of the Kind amendment, which I oppose, none of them serve on the
committee. None of them have recognized that the committee bill passed
by unanimous consent out of the committee. That, in and of itself, is
enough for us to support the committee bill.
The only reason for a farm bill and to have farm and food policy is
to ensure adequate production and processing capacity so that the
American people have enough to eat and clothes on their back. The
committee bill does this; the Kind amendment destroys that safety net
that has made that possible.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize
the gentlelady from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda), one of our new members of the
committee, a great Member of the House, for 1 minute.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I thank the chairman for all the hard work that
has gone into this bill.
I rise in opposition to the Kind amendment. I believe, actually, that
they are doing it with the best of intentions, but what will happen to
independent and small farmers in Kansas is not a good thing, and I will
not be able to support it.
But, Madam Chairman, I would also like to talk today about something
that I have been speaking about in Kansas for now 4 years, and that is
closing the loopholes on these corporations that move offshore just to
avoid taxes. The people in Kansas certainly are not happy that this has
been allowed to go on for year after year. And I am proud to work on
the farm bill, what I thought was a very bipartisan group, and I get to
kill two birds with one stone, hopefully, and that is to bring home a
farm policy that is going to be a very good thing for our country and
for Kansas farmers, and we get to

[[Page H8722]]

finally close a loophole that should have been closed years and years
ago.
The bottom line is we can't borrow and spend. We have to pay for the
things that we want. It is a bipartisan bill, it is not a tax increase,
and I ask my colleagues to support our farm bill.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space), one of our other new Members, and
a great member of the committee, for 1 minute.
Mr. SPACE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Kind
amendment, and I do so on behalf of the farmers of Ohio's 18th
Congressional District. They are a very diverse bunch, but one thing
they all have in common is that they are small, family-run operations.
They asked for several things in this farm bill: conservation,
energy, and a safety net. This bill as it has come out of committee
provides those things that will allow those farmers to continue to do
business. Those farmers operate on extremely narrow margins, and
without a safety net that mitigates their risks, they can no longer do
business.
Madam Chairman, the people of this country are already experiencing
increased rates for gasoline, for utilities, for health care. The last
thing that we can afford in this country is to see a spike in the price
of food.
Madam Chairman, I rise once again in opposition to the Kind amendment
and in favor of the bill as it has come out of the committee.

{time} 2145

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, we have no further speakers on the
legislation. I yield back.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to recognize
for 1 minute my good friend and neighbor from Minnesota, a new member
of our committee, Mr. Walz.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the chairman and my good friend for
the work he's done, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, the ranking member for making the experience in the Ag
Committee as rewarding as it's been.
I rise in opposition to my good friend from Wisconsin's piece of
legislation. It's well meaning, but I believe it does not address the
needs of my district. The people of the First District of Minnesota, I
think, can probably lay claim to one of the richest agricultural pieces
of land in the entire world. We lead in production of soybeans, near
the top in corn production, turkeys and pork.
This is a bill that is supported. I had 14 hearings throughout my
district with universal acceptance of making sure the safety net is
maintained, improving our conservation programs and strengthening rural
America.
When I hear about record high prices, the people of this Chamber and
the people of America need to know the price of corn has dropped 25
percent in the last month. Farmers know it won't always remain that
way.
When I need advice on the farm bill, I go to a couple of good farmers
in my district, Kevin Papp, president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau, and
Doug Peterson, president of Minnesota's Farmers Union. I don't need to
go to the ideologues at the Cato Institute or Club for Growth to know
what's good for rural America.
I oppose this amendment and support the chairman's mark.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize
the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for 1 minute.
Mr. POMEROY. I was really surprised to hear my colleague, Mr. Flake,
say, in talking about his bill, that farmers participating in the farm
program are something like grown children living in the parents'
basement. What a complete affront to the hardworking family farmers
producing our Nation's food all across this country.
It also shows a profound ignorance in just what's involved in family
farming, tremendous capital exposed every year you put that crop and
risks you can't control, price collapse, crop failure. And the only
thing that's going to keep family farmers as our backbone for U.S. food
production is a farm program that helps allay these risks.
What do we want for our future, vast corporate-style ag production or
family farmers producing the abundant food, the high quality, the low
cost we've come to enjoy in our food supply in this country?
I know what the people back home represent. They want family farms,
and that's why they want this farm bill.
Vote ``no'' on Kind; ``yes'' on the farm bill.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
Madam Chairman, change in this place is very difficult. In fact,
sometimes the toughest thing to accomplish is changing the status quo.
But the fundamental fact is that when you've got two-thirds of the
subsidy program in this farm bill going to just 30 congressional
districts who are well represented on the committee, I think it's
unrealistic to expect that that committee's going to produce a policy
statement that embraces reform and new ideas. I should know. I used to
serve on the committee. And I'm not being critical. That's just a fact.
They have their districts to represent as we have districts to
represent as well.
My district takes a hit under this reform bill. But sometimes it
takes a group of well-intentioned individuals to move the cause of
reform forward, and that's what we're trying to do tonight.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I acknowledge and do not disparage the work
of the committee. Let us consider, though, how much better we can do--
for consumers, for the Northeast, for New Jersey, for specialty crop
growers, for small farmers, for nutrition programs, for our common
environment.
By shifting from obsolete programs the Kind amendment provides an
additional $1.2 billion above the committee bill for fruit and
vegetable growers--tripling the Farmer Market Promotion Program, making
$500 million mandatory for Specialty Crop Research, making $150 million
mandatory for Community Food Projects, and providing hundreds of
millions of dollars for community supported agriculture, and the School
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.
I want to emphasize that the Kind amendment would provide $3 billion
more than the committee bill to conservation programs.
Support for the Kind amendment is broad and diverse including
environmental and conservation groups, nutrition groups and groups that
serve low-income Americans, specialty crop and organic farmers, and
taxpayer groups. This is a sensible amendment. Indeed, the proposal by
Mr. Kind, the gentleman from Wisconsin, is a remarkable, admirable
legislative reform. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
the Kind-Flake amendment, and in support of H.R. 2419, the Farm,
Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007.
Madam Chairman, the Kind-Flake amendment is nothing more than a
veiled attempt at pulling the rug out from underneath of this nation's
hardworking family farmers and those in the rural South who till the
land of our nation to provide us with a safe, healthy, and robust food
supply--often with little or no profit for themselves.
Increasingly, we are relying on our farmers on many fronts--namely,
to clothe, feed and, now, fuel our nation. The Kind-Flake amendment
would divert us from reaching that goal by discouraging domestic crop
production, dismantling our hope for energy innovation and
independence, and increasing the trade deficit with countries that
threaten our economic competitiveness.
Indeed, the Kind-Flake proposal would take away the farm safety net
and put U.S. farmers and ranchers in unfair competition against heavily
subsidized foreign producers, many of whom are protected by much higher
import tariffs than those imposed by the United States.
In recent months, we have heard horrific accounts of how agricultural
products are grown and how food is manufactured abroad, especially in
China, whose rapidly growing, already behemoth-sized economy now
imports $2.26 billion worth of food into this country each year. Do we
really want to reduce the incentive for our domestic producers to grow
their own, and rely more from these foreign countries with proven
histories of lax food safety standards and tendencies to include
poisonous additives into their products? I surely hope not.
Furthermore, in lowering the AGI limitation to $250,000, the Kind-
Flake proposal is not drawn narrowly, as its supporters claim, but
instead casts a wide net--it would eliminate over 38,000 current
recipients from being covered by a farm safety net.
The Kind-Flake proposal also misrepresents itself by touting its
revenue-based counter cyclical payments as revolutionary, and as a
superior alternative to the traditional counter-cyclical program. This
completely ignores the fact that the Agricultural Committee's markup
includes a revenue based counter-cyclical payment option!

[[Page H8723]]

In the Agricultural Committee's proposal the producer gets to choose
whether or not the current payment system or a revenue-based system is
right for their unique operation. This allows individual producers to
decide on their own what is best for their operation.
Kind-Flake also cuts direct payments and, quite foolishly, assumes
that by cutting direct payments, landowners will lower the price of
rented land. In reality, cutting Direct Payments would leave farmers
who rent land in a terrible lurch. It is highly unlikely that
landowners will feel sympathetic to a producer and compelled to lower
land rental rates.
Much of this debate is focused on cost--that agricultural subsidies
are out of control, are disproportionate to the agricultural industry's
value to United States GDP, but let's focus on the facts: U.S. farm
policy today costs less than one half of one percent of the total
federal budget and comprises just 13 percent of the total U.S.
Department of Agriculture budget. I believe that proportionately small
cost is well worth what is returned to the American people in terms of
a safe, affordable and robust food supply, a base on which to become
energy independent, 20 percent of this nation's jobs, and $3.5 trillion
in economic activity.
My colleagues offering this amendment today are misguided about rural
interests, about rural America, and about the overall cost of a bill
that is expected to keep U.S. farm policy costs low and be good for
taxpayers.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin will be
postponed.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, pursuant to House
Resolution 574, I offer amendments en bloc, including germane
modifications. The amendments are at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

Amendments en bloc consisting of amendments No. 4 by Mr.
Lucas, No. 8 by Mr. Hastings of Florida, No. 9 by Mr. Arcuri
of New York, No. 10 by Mr. Welch of Vermont, No. 14 by Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, No. 17 by Mr. Latham, No. 22
by Mr. Wu, No. 23 by Mr. Clay, as modified; No. 24 by Mr.
Israel, No. 26 by Ms. Bordallo, No. 28 by Mr. Emanuel, No. 30
by Mr. Hodes and No. 31 by Mr. Shuler printed in part B of
House Report 110-261 offered by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota:

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Lucas

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle A of title XI, insert the following
new section:

SEC. 11013. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the purchase of
a Non-insured Assistance Program policy shall not be a
requirement to receive any Federal livestock disaster
assistance.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title XI add the following new section:

SEC. __. POLLINATOR PROTECTION.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Pollinator Protection Act of 2007''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) many of the crops that humans and livestock consume
rely on pollinators for healthy growth;
(2) pollination by honey and native bees adds more than
$18,000,000,000 annually to the value of United States crops;
(3) \1/3\ of the food supply of the United States depends
on bee pollination, which makes the management and protection
of pollinators an issue of paramount importance to the
security of the United States food supply system;
(4) colony collapse disorder is the name that has been
given to the latest die-off of honey bee colonies,
exacerbating the continual decline of pollinators in North
America;
(5) honey bee colonies in more than 23 states have been
affected by colony collapse disorder;
(6) if the current rate of decline continues, the United
States will be forced to rely more heavily on imported foods,
which will destabilize the food security of the United States
through adverse affects on the availability, price, and
quality of the many fruits, vegetables, and other products
that depend on animal pollination; and
(7) enhanced funding for research on honey bees, native
bees, parasites, pathogens, toxins, and other environmental
factors affecting bees and pollination of cultivated and wild
plants will result in methods of response to colony collapse
disorder and other factors causing the decline of pollinators
in North America.
(c) Authorizations of Appropriations.--
(1) Agricultural research service.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture, acting
through the Agricultural Research Service--
(A) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012,
to be used for new personnel, facilities improvement, and
additional research at Department of Agriculture Bee Research
Laboratories;
(B) $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009, to
be used for research on honey and native bee physiology,
insect pathology, insect chemical ecology, and honey and
native bee toxicology at other Department of Agriculture
facilities in New York, Florida, California, Utah, and Texas;
and
(C) $1,750,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010,
to be used for an area-wide research program to identify
causes and solutions for colony collapse disorder in affected
States.
(2) Cooperative state research, education, and extension
service.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, $10,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to be used to fund
Department of Agriculture extension and research grants to
investigate--
(A) honey bee biology, immunology, and ecology;
(B) honey bee genomics;
(C) honey bee bioinformatics;
(D) native bee crop pollination and habitat conservation;
(E) native bee taxonomy and ecology;
(F) pollination biology;
(G) sublethal effects of insecticides, herbicides, and
fungicides on honey bees, native pollinators, and other
beneficial insects;
(H) the effects of genetically-modified crops, including
the interaction of genetically-modified crops with honey bees
and other native pollinators; and
(I) honey, bumble, and other native bee parasites and
pathogens and effects on other native pollinators.
(3) Animal and plant health inspection service.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Agriculture, acting through the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, $2,250,000 for each of fiscal years 2008
through 2012 to conduct a nationwide honey bee pest and
pathogen surveillance program.
(d) Annual Reports.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting
through the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, shall
submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate a report on the status and
progress of bee research projects that are carried out by the
Secretary.
(e) Giving Pollinator Habitat and Protection a Priority in
Conservation Programs.--Section 1244 of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3844) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c) Native and Managed Pollinators.--In carrying out any
conservation program administered by the Secretary, except
the farmland protection program, the Secretary shall
establish a priority and provide incentives for--
``(1) increasing habitat for native and managed
pollinators, especially native habitat; and
``(2) establishing cropping systems, integrated pest
management regimes, and other practices to protect native and
managed pollinators.''.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Arcuri

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following new
section:

SEC. 2410. ADJUSTMENT OF CLASS I MILK PRICE MOVER TO REFLECT
ENERGY AND ANIMAL FEED COST INCREASES.

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
Agriculture should use existing authority when determining
the Class I milk price mover to take into account the
increased cost of production, including energy and feed.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Section 4303 is further amended by striking paragraph (2)
and inserting the following:
(2) in paragraph (3)(A)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking
``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)'';
(B) in clause (iii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in clause (iv) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) encourage plans for implementation that include
locally grown foods, where geographically available, in
accordance with section 9(j).''.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

The text of the amendment is as follows:

[[Page H8724]]

At the end of subtitle B of title VII, insert the
following:

SEC. 7234. EMPHASIS OF HUMAN NUTRITION INITIATIVE.

Section 1424(b) of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3174(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and,'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the comma and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) proposals that examine the efficacy of current
agriculture policies in promoting the health and welfare of
economically disadvantaged populations,''.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Latham

The text of the amendment is as follows:

In section 6008--
(1) insert ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--''
before ``Section''; and
(2) add at the end the following:
(b) Additional priority in awarding grants.--Section
306E(c) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1926e(c)) is amended by
inserting ``, and to an applicant that has substantial
expertise and experience in promoting the safe and productive
use of individually-owned household water well systems and
ground water. The ability of an applicant to provide matching
funds shall not be taken into account in determining any
priority in awarding grants under this section. The payment
by a grantee of audit fees, business insurance, salary,
wages, employee benefits, printing costs, postage costs, and
legal fees associated with providing the assistance described
in paragraph (1) shall be considered the provision of
matching funds by the grantee for purposes of this section''
before the period.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Wu

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 603, line 18, insert after ``economies'' the
following: ``or universities with fields of study capable of
developing renewable energy technology or policy''.
Page 604, line 7, insert after ``economy'' the following:
``, or at a university with fields of study capable of
developing renewable energy technology or policy (including
agriculture-related studies, chemistry, environmental
sciences, bioengineering, biochemistry, natural resources,
and public policy),''.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Clay

The text of the amendment is as follows:

In subtitle B of title X, insert after section 10103 the
following new section 10103A (and amend the tables of content
accordingly):

SEC. 10103A ADDITIONAL SECTION 32 FUNDS TO PROVIDE GRANTS FOR
THE PURCHASE AND OPERATION OF URBAN GARDENS
GROWING ORGANIC FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FOR THE
LOCAL POPULATION.

(a) Grants.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make grants
to eligible entities to assist in purchasing and operating
organic gardens or greenhouses in urban areas for growing
fruits and vegetables. In making such grants, the Secretary
will ensure such fruits and vegetables are sold to local
grocery stores.
(b) Limitations.--Grants provided to any eligible entity
under this section may not exceed $25,000 for any given year.
(c) Eligible Entities.--
(1) Individuals.--An individual shall be eligible to
receive a grant under subsection (a) if the individual is a
resident of the neighborhood in which the urban garden or
greenhouse is located, or will be located.
(2) Cooperatives.--A cooperative shall be eligible to
receive a grant under subsection (a) if every individual
member or owner of the cooperative is a resident of the
neighborhood in which the urban garden or greenhouse is
located, or will be located.
(d) Selection of Eligible Entities.--The Secretary shall
develop criteria for the selection of eligible entities to
receive grants under this section.
(e) Funding.--The Secretary shall award such grants using,
of the funds made available under section 32 of the Act of
August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), $20,000,000 in fiscal year
2008 and each fiscal year thereafter.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Israel

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title XI add the following new sections:

SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON USE OF LIVE ANIMALS FOR MARKETING
MEDICAL DEVICES; FINES UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE
ACT.

(a) Prohibition on Use of Animals for Marketing of Medical
Devices.--The Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) is
amended by inserting after section 17 the following new
section:

``PROHIBITION ON USE OF LIVE ANIMALS FOR MARKETING MEDICAL DEVICES

``Sec. 18. (a) In General.--No person may use a live
animal to--
``(1) demonstrate a medical device or product to a sales
representative for the purpose of marketing such medical
device or product;
``(2) train a sales representative to use a medical device
or product;
``(3) demonstrate a medical device or product in a workshop
or training session for the purpose of marketing a medical
device or product; or
``(4) create a multimedia recording (including a video
recording) for the purpose of marketing a medical device or
product.
``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
training of medical personnel for a purpose other than
marketing a medical device or product.
``(c) Device Defined.--In this section, the term `device'
has the meaning given the term in section 201(h) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)).''.
(b) Fines for Violations of the Animal Welfare Act.--
Section 19(b) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence by striking ``not more than
$2,500 for each such violation'' and inserting ``not more
than $10,000 for each such violation''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following: ``Each violation, each day during which a
violation continues, and, in the case of a violation with
respect to animals, each animal that is the subject of such a
violation shall be a separate offense.''.
(c) Reports on Activities Under the Animal Welfare Act.--
The Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) is further
amended by striking section 25 and inserting the following
new section:

``ANNUAL REPORT

``Sec. 25. Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing--
``(1) an identification of all research facilities,
exhibitors, and other persons and establishments licensed by
the Secretary under section 3 and section 12;
``(2) an identification of all research facilities,
intermediate handlers, carriers, and exhibitors registered
under section 6;
``(3) the nature and place of all investigations and
inspections conducted by the Secretary under section 16, and
all reports received by the Secretary under section 13;
``(4) recommendations for legislation to improve the
administration of this Act or any provisions of this Act; and
``(5) recommendations and conclusions concerning the
aircraft environment as it relates to the carriage of live
animals in air transportation.''.

SEC. __. PROTECTION OF PETS.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Pet
Safety and Protection Act of 2007''.
(b) Research Facilities.--Section 7 of the Animal Welfare
Act (7 U.S.C. 2137) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 7. SOURCES OF DOGS AND CATS FOR RESEARCH FACILITIES.

``(a) Definition of Person.--In this section, the term
`person' means any individual, partnership, firm, joint stock
company, corporation, association, trust, estate, pound,
shelter, or other legal entity.
``(b) Use of Dogs and Cats.--No research facility or
Federal research facility may use a dog or cat for research
or educational purposes if the dog or cat was obtained from a
person other than a person described in subsection (d).
``(c) Selling, Donating, or Offering Dogs and Cats.--No
person, other than a person described in subsection (d), may
sell, donate, or offer a dog or cat to any research facility
or Federal research facility.
``(d) Permissible Sources.--A person from whom a research
facility or a Federal research facility may obtain a dog or
cat for research or educational purposes under subsection
(b), and a person who may sell, donate, or offer a dog or cat
to a research facility or a Federal research facility under
subsection (c), shall be--
``(1) a dealer licensed under section 3 that has bred and
raised the dog or cat;
``(2) a publicly owned and operated pound or shelter that--
``(A) is registered with the Secretary;
``(B) is in compliance with section 28(a)(1) and with the
requirements for dealers in subsections (b) and (c) of
section 28; and
``(C) obtained the dog or cat from its legal owner, other
than a pound or shelter;
``(3) a person that is donating the dog or cat and that--
``(A) bred and raised the dog or cat; or
``(B) owned the dog or cat for not less than 1 year
immediately preceding the donation;
``(4) a research facility licensed by the Secretary; and
``(5) a Federal research facility licensed by the
Secretary.
``(e) Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--A person that violates this section
shall be fined $1,000 for each violation.
``(2) Additional penalty.--A penalty under this subsection
shall be in addition to any other applicable penalty.
``(f) No Required Sale or Donation.--Nothing in this
section requires a pound or shelter to sell, donate, or offer
a dog or cat to a research facility or Federal research
facility.''.
(c) Federal Research Facilities.--Section 8 of the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2138) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 8. No department'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 8. FEDERAL RESEARCH FACILITIES.

``Except as provided in section 7, no department'';
(2) by striking ``research or experimentation or''; and
(3) by striking ``such purposes'' and inserting ``that
purpose''.
(d) Certification.--Section 28(b)(1) of the Animal Welfare
Act (7 U.S.C. 2158(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``individual
or entity'' and inserting ``research facility or Federal
research facility''.

[[Page H8725]]

(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections
(b), (c), and (d) take effect on the date that is 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Bordallo

The text of the amendment is as follows:

After section 7233, insert the following new section (and
conform the table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 7234. GRANTS TO UPGRADE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCES
FACILITIES AT INSULAR AREA LAND-GRANT
INSTITUTIONS.

The National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 1447A the following:

``SEC. 1447B. GRANTS TO UPGRADE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCES
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT AT INSULAR AREA LAND-
GRANT INSTITUTIONS.

``(a) Purpose.--It is declared to be the intent of Congress
to assist the land grant institutions in the insular areas in
efforts to acquire, alter, or repair facilities or relevant
equipment necessary for conducting agricultural research.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of carrying
out the provisions of this section $8,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
``(c) Method of Awarding Grants.--Grants awarded pursuant
to this section shall be made in such amounts and under such
terms and conditions as the Secretary shall determine
necessary for carrying out the purposes of this section.
``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate such rules
and regulations as the Secretary may consider necessary to
carry out the provisions of this section.''.

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Emanuel

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title I, add the following new
section:

SEC. 1512. PREVENTION OF DECEASED PERSONS RECEIVING PAYMENTS
UNDER FARM COMMODITY PROGRAMS.

(a) Identification of Erroneous Payments Made to Deceased
Persons.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
(1) undertake a study to identify any estate of a deceased
person that continued to receive payments under this title
for more than two crop years after the death of the person;
and
(2) submit a report containing the results of the study to
Congress.
(b) Notification.--The Secretary shall issue regulations
that specify deadlines by which a legal entity must notify
the Secretary of any change in ownership of such entity,
including the death of a person with a direct or indirect
ownership interest in the entity, that may affect the
entity's eligibility to receive payments or other benefits
under this title. The Secretary may deny the issuance of such
payments or benefits to an entity that fails to comply with
such regulations.
(c) Recoupment.--If the Secretary determines that the
estate of a deceased person failed to timely notify the Farm
Service Agency of the death, the Secretary shall recoup the
erroneous payments made on behalf of the deceased person. The
Secretary shall withhold payments that would otherwise be
made under this title to farming operations in which the
deceased person was actively engaged in farming before death
until the funds have been recouped.
(d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall, twice a year,
reconcile individual tax identification numbers with the
Internal Revenue Service for recipients of payments under
this title to determine recipients' living status.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Hodes

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title IX add the following new section:

SEC. __. COMMUNITY WOOD ENERGY PROGRAM.

(a) Findings.-- Congress finds that--
(1) the United States' over-reliance on fossil fuel energy
has placed undue strain on the nation by compromising our
economy and national security;
(2) the United States' over-reliance on fossil fuel energy
has also created new strains on our natural systems,
including carbon emissions that contribute to climate change;
(3) transportation of energy, such as heating oil, adds to
carbon emissions associated with meeting our community energy
needs and therefore further feeds climate change;
(4) it is in the national interest to conserve energy and
support adoption of new local, sustainable, efficient, and
carbon neutral energy sources, such as wood energy, for
community energy needs;
(5) communities can save as much as 50 percent over natural
gas, 80 percent over propane, 80 percent over electric heat,
and 50 percent over oil heat by switching to wood energy for
heating schools and other public buildings;
(6) in fast growing communities of all sizes across the
United States, municipal and country-owned forest land is
playing an essential role in meeting many public needs and
could also be used to help support sustainable forestry and
local wood energy applications; and
(7) the rapidly expanding base of private forest land
owners nationwide includes many individuals with no
experience in forest stewardship who could be given technical
assistance to provide locally sourced wood supply through
sustainable forest management for local wood energy
applications.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide
grants for community wood energy systems that are intended
to--
(1) meet community energy needs with reduced carbon
intensity versus fossil fuel systems;
(2) promote energy conservation and development of new
renewable energy sources;
(3) aid local budgets by reducing municipal and county
energy costs;
(4) increase utilization of low value wood supplies and
waste, thereby strengthening the forest products economy for
the benefit of forest workers and private forest land owners;
and
(5) increase awareness of energy conservation and
consumption and the multiple-use values of forests among
community members, especially young people.
(c) Grant Program.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting
through the Forest Service, shall establish a program to be
known as the Community Wood Energy Program to provide grants
to State and local governments to acquire community wood
energy systems for public buildings and to implement a
community wood energy plan.
(d) Use in Public Buildings.--A State or local government
receiving a grant under subsection (c) shall use a community
wood energy system acquired in whole or in part with the use
of grant funds for primary use in a public facility owned by
such State or local government.
(e) Limitation.--A community wood energy system acquired
with grant funds provided under subsection (c) shall not
exceed an output of--
(1) 50,000,000 BTU per hour for heating; and
(2) 2 megawatts for electric power production.
(f) Community Wood Energy Plan.--Within 18 months of
receiving assistance under this section, communities shall
utilize the technical assistance of the State forester to
create a community wood energy plan identifying how local
forests can be accessed in a sustainable manner to help meet
the wood supply needs of systems purchased under this
section.
(g) Matching Funds.--A State or local government receiving
a grant under subsection (c) shall contribute an amount of
non-Federal funds towards the acquisition of community wood
energy systems that is at least equal to the amount of grant
funds received by such State or local government.
(h) Community Wood Energy System Defined.--The term
``community wood energy system'' includes single facility
central heating, district heating, combined heat and energy
systems, and other related biomass energy systems that
service schools, town halls, libraries, and other public
buildings.
(i) Appropriation.-- There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this
section.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Shuler

The text of the amendment is as follows:

In section 404 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, as
added by section 8102, insert after subsection (c) the
following new subsection (and redesignate subsequent
subsections):
``(d) Insect and Disease Threats.--Notwithstanding
subsection (c)(1), non-industrial private forest lands are
eligible under this section if the Secretary determines that
the lands are under an imminent threat of loss or damage by
insect or disease and immediate action would help to avoid
the loss or damage.

Modification to Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Clay

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to part B amendment No. 23 printed in House
Report 110-261 offered by Mr. Clay:

The amendment is modified to read as follows:

In subtitle B of title X, insert after section 10103 the
following new section 10103A (and amend the tables of content
accordingly):

SEC. 10103A. ADDITIONAL SECTION 32 FUNDS TO PROVIDE GRANTS
FOR THE PURCHASE AND OPERATION OF URBAN GARDENS
GROWING ORGANIC FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FOR THE
LOCAL POPULATION.

[[Page H8726]]

(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for
fiscal year 2008 and for each fiscal year thereafter.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of the modification be dispensed
with.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, this amendment includes a
number of amendments that have been worked out with the minority, and
they are amendments that we were not able to get into the manager's
amendment, so I would yield to the ranking member for his take on these
amendments.
Mr. GOODLATTE. If the gentleman would repeat his request.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I was explaining that these en bloc
amendments have been agreed to between yourself and myself and the
members of the committee and we recommend their adoption.
Mr. GOODLATTE. That is correct.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. We have a colloquy that I would like to do
during this time if it's okay with the ranking member.
Mr. GOODLATTE. We will reserve the balance of the time that has been
yielded to us and we certainly have no objection to you yielding to
others.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia seek to claim the time
in opposition?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I'm not seeking time in opposition. I support the
amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentlelady from California.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, I rise this evening to enter into a colloquy
with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), our distinguished
chair of the Agriculture Committee.
And first, let me just thank the gentleman for his hard work on the
farm bill reauthorization and his dedication to moving our Nation
forward in the area of agriculture, nutrition, conservation and energy.
I want to applaud his efforts to accommodate the various caucuses and
coalitions across the country and in Congress, including the
Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the
California delegation and the Hunger Caucus.
Madam Chairman, I come to the floor today to raise the important
issue of concern to me and members of the Congressional Black Caucus
regarding the lifetime ban of eligibility of food stamps for formerly
incarcerated persons who were convicted of drug offenses.
It makes no sense to single out this group. Most recent figures show
that nearly 213,000 State inmates were released in 2005 after serving a
sentence for a drug crime, and most recent Federal data shows that
24,400 Federal inmates were released in 2002. After they serve their
time, they reenter society looking to improve themselves and their
lives. The task of finding a job for formerly incarcerated individuals
is often difficult and a daunting task. This effort is even more
difficult if they want to go back to school, be it for their GED or
college degree. In these instances, they are unable to access many of
the resources available to others, including food stamps.
The inequity to this group couldn't be clearer. Drug offenses account
for more than 50 percent of the crimes committed by Federal prisoners
and more than 20 percent of State prisoners, most of whom are
nonviolent offenders. With factors such as poverty and lack of access
to educational resources, coupled with the lack of sufficient legal
resources, this issue disproportionately affects the African American
community.
In 1996, the Congress, in an overzealous attempt to appear tough on
crime, included in the Welfare Reform bill a provision that excluded
formerly incarcerated persons from receiving food stamp benefits for
life. This is a lifetime ban if they have ever been convicted of a drug
crime.
So Madam Chair, that is why I offered an amendment to the rule to
H.R. 2419 to strike this ban. Although the amendment was not made in
order, I strongly believe that this is an unfair and unjust policy
which must be addressed.
In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he said ``An injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''
Madam Chairman, this policy has created a slippery slope, one that
can be used to cherry-pick certain segments of the population who can
eat, basically, while others must scrape and scramble for the basics.
Once someone has served their debt to society, they should be able to
have access to the minimum amount of food vital to their survival while
they get their lives together.
So I hope that I can work together with the distinguished Chair of
the Ag Committee to ensure that this grave inequity is corrected.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I want to assure the gentlewoman from
California I agree with her on the point and appreciate her intention
in raising this issue. And I want to assure the gentlewoman that, as
the bill moves forward, we will be mindful of this issue and work with
her and her staff to accommodate this provision.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, let me take this opportunity to thank the
gentleman for his attention to this issue, and I look forward to
working with him to ensure that it is addressed. And I want to
congratulate him on putting together the coalition for this bill.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and
also want to thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for his
response displaying sensitivity and recognition of a tremendous
injustice, as well as a great need that exists in our society.
Many of those individuals who have been convicted of drug offenses
should have been in hospitals and health clinics, should have been
receiving treatment, as opposed to incarceration and conviction.
So, Madam Chairman, I too commend you for your sensitivity,
willingness to work on this issue, and commend the gentlewoman from
California for bringing it to the floor.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I recognize the gentlelady
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage the fine gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) in a colloquy on unfair practices in the
poultry and meat packing industries, and want to commend him for this
incredibly visionary piece of legislation. It is a real credit to him,
to his dogged work and expertise over so many years in this Congress as
well as in the private sector.
The current contracted system of meat and poultry production often
maneuvers farmers who do the actual work of raising and feeding
billions of animals into subservient positions in today's marketplace
and legal system. Poultry has become one of the most vertically
integrated industries in our country, with four firms controlling
nearly 60 percent of the broilers raised and sold.
Poultry, despite the worrisome rise of camphylobacter and salmonella
through safety recalls, remains outside the normal oversight by USDA,
even though GIPSA has oversight over beef and pork.

{time} 2200

The Department of Agriculture has no real power to stop unfair
practices in this industry. It surely has no mediation authority.
Poultry contracts often are presented to farmers as take-it-or-leave-it
contracts. In many cases farmers do not even see the actual contract
until after they have gone to the bank. Farmers are not encouraged to
negotiate contract terms that protect their interests, such as hedging
against animal deaths and environmental cleanup costs, assuring
accurate weights and measures and fair feed and input pricing, or
gaining a fair share of the value of the nitrogen-rich manure produced
by the animals themselves.
As the gentleman from Minnesota moves forward on the farm bill
conference, I would urge him to give the USDA the full authority to
protect against unfair practices in the poultry industry and to protect
farmers' legal rights.

[[Page H8727]]

Please give farmers legal standing in court. Provide them with
transparency in pricing, as well as technical assistance with fair
contracts. Assure weights and measures. Help them hedge against animal
deaths and environmental cleanups. Provide for legal and safe working
conditions for chicken catchers who are their primary workforce. Bring
honor to this industry with contracting fairness to farmers and their
workers.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
for an additional 2 minutes on this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman's request provide for each side to
have an additional 2 minutes?
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I want to thank Ms. Kaptur
for bringing up this issue.
As chairman of the Agriculture Committee and representative of the
largest turkey-producing industry in the United States, I share your
concern and interest in making sure that we are not putting poultry
farmers at a disadvantage. We have worked hard on the committee to have
an open process, and earlier this year the Subcommittee on Livestock
held a hearing on issues similar to this one.
Now as we continue to move forward in the farm bill process, we will
keep this issue in mind and look forward to working with the
gentlewoman to address her concerns in the conference committee.
Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois, who has one of the amendments included in the en bloc
amendment.
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from
Minnesota for yielding.
The other day there was a story in the newspaper about dead farmers
who were still collecting benefits up to about $1 billion. This
amendment would cut down on that type of fraud and bring real
accountability to the system.
I am from Chicago. In Chicago we kind of appreciate the ability of
dead people to do spectacular things, but this would even bring an
alderman to blush. A billion dollars to dead farmers still getting
government benefits. I think a Chicago alderman would be jealous of
this type of benefit.
So after that report, a number of us put in an amendment to bring the
type of accountability to the Department of Agriculture for the type of
benefits that are applied and should only be applied to farmers who are
farming, obviously, their farm and working, but not to dead farmers and
to people who should not be receiving what they estimate is close to $1
billion.
So I want to thank the chairman for allowing me to offer this to
track down the fraudulent payments that have gone on in the Department
of Agriculture and eliminate the type of waste, fraud, and abuse that
exist.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of the
amendment.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Madam Chairman, I rise today to support this
amendment offered by my colleague and friend from Oklahoma. This
amendment is critical to deliver on the promise that we made to
American livestock producers this past May. After more than a year of
effort--and despite several veto threats from the President--we were
successful in passing much-needed disaster assistance through this
Chamber and enacted into law.
Then, several months after the bill's passage, the Secretary of
Agriculture decided that a certain phrase in the bill effectively
denies aid to all livestock producers that did not participate in the
Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program or the crop insurance
pilot program for rangeland. I assure my colleagues that this was not
the intention of Congress and, regardless of the accuracy of USDA's
legal interpretation, we need to fix it.
I have worked with Agriculture Committee leadership to find a
solution to this problem and I am pleased this amendment was made in
order. I also have shared this problem with the leadership of the
Appropriations Committee to ensure that this year's Agriculture
Appropriations bill contains language to address this as well, and I am
pleased to report that it does. Using this dual-track approach, I am
confident that we can solve this problem in time to prevent any delays
in delivering this much-needed assistance to American producers.
This amendment will enable us to deliver on the promise we have made
to deserving and distressed ranchers across this country, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank you for
consideration of my amendment to H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and
Bioenergy Act of 2007.
My amendment focuses on Title VII, which is the Research Title of the
legislation.
Specifically, the amendment adds a section to the end of ``Subtitle
B,'' which contains provisions pertaining to the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977.
The 1977 Act contains Section 1424, authorizing the ``Human Nutrition
Intervention and Health Promotion Research Program.''
This is the nutrition research arm of the Department of Agriculture.
The program authorizes the Agriculture Secretary to award research
grants for human nutrition intervention and health promotion.
The 1977 Act describes the ``Emphasis of the Initiative.'' It goes on
to say that research projects should emphasize:
Coordinated, longitudinal research assessments of nutritional status;
and
``The implementation of unified, innovative intervention strategies
to identify and solve problems of nutritional inadequacy and contribute
to the maintenance of health, well-being, performance, and productivity
of individuals, thereby reducing the need of the individuals to use the
health care system and social programs of the United States.''
Madam Chairman, my amendment would add one additional point regarding
the emphasis of the nutrition research initiative.
Emphasis should also be placed on research proposals that examine the
efficacy of current agriculture policies in promoting the health and
welfare of economically disadvantaged populations.
The working poor suffer disproportionately from obesity and its
related disorders: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, joint problems,
and others.
Nutrition research should include matters relating to public health.
My amendment specifies that the scope of human nutrition research
include grant proposals that study the effectiveness of current
agriculture policies in promoting the health of individuals living in
poverty.
These groups stand to benefit the most from nutrition research.
Taxpayer dollars should be invested wisely, Madam Chairman. An
investment in analyzing how well the Federal Government's agriculture
policies enable Americans to live healthy lives and make good nutrition
choices is money well spent.
This amendment directs a sharper focus on nutrition research to help
the economically disadvantaged.
I thank the Chairman for his acceptance of my amendment and urge my
colleagues to support it also.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
Strike sections 5031, 5032, 5033, 5035, and 5036.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman I yield myself 2 minutes.
This bill as presented significantly expands the ability of the Farm
Credit System to operate in nonfarm contexts in two ways; first of all,
in terms of the membership that would be required to be farm credit
providers, and, secondly, in terms of the transactions in which they
engage. And I think that would be

[[Page H8728]]

an error. And I believe that it is a mistake to allow an expansion into
the banking system by entities that aren't banks. We have a particular
exemption in the Farm Credit System for agricultural lending, and it
was meant to be lending by and to agricultural commodities. This bill
goes beyond it.
Now, I want to say, and I have had conversations with the chairman of
the Agriculture Committee, Members have said that especially with the
interest in alternative energy, there have been problems in getting
loans from banks. I must say that, and I talked to my colleague the
ranking Republican, no one has brought this to our attention. Had this
been brought to our attention on the Financial Services Committee, we
would have responded. And I want to say now, and I talked to the
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I am prepared to have, I think
we should have in the fall, joint hearings of our two committees, the
Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Financial Services, to
listen to people's concerns here. And if it is documented that there
have been problems with the availability of loans for the purpose of
alternative energy for agriculture, then, yes, I would agree that
something is appropriate. My problem is that this bill as it now stands
goes beyond that in several ways. It weakens the restrictions in terms
of stock ownership as to who gets involved.
Now, another issue that has been raised was allowing an increase in
the town size, from 2,500 to 6,000. My reaction to that was favorable,
but we were never able, as we were willing, to negotiate out some
limitations and some expansions.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLDEN. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLDEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes of my time to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and I ask unanimous consent
that he be allowed to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOLDEN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman
from Massachusetts' amendment.
What we tried to do in the subcommittee, Mr. Lucas and I, was try to
see that access to credit was readily available in rural America,
particularly in the agriculture sector. We tried to find a way to form
a compromise between a Farm Credit System and the banking industry. We
held hearings and brought them together, and we found out we had
managed to anger both sides; so maybe we had a pretty good compromise.
The Farm Credit System in the HORIZONS project wanted to expand rural
housing from 2,500 to 50,000. They wanted to expand on agriculture
lending to agriculture-related businesses, a great diversion from where
they are limited right now. And we thought that was too far, but we
wanted to make sure there was access to credit in rural America, and we
think we came up with a pretty good compromise.
In increasing the rural housing from 2,500 to 6,000, we are, all of
us, not only in this committee, but this Congress, anxious to try to
find ways to use renewable energy sources, and we believe that in this
industry there is going to be a lack of credit. As the chairman of the
full committee has said during this debate, he has noticed that in his
home State of Minnesota. So we thought extending the credit to energy-
related agriculture lending through the Farm Credit System was
reasonable and responsible and something that was a good compromise.
So, Madam Chairman, we feel in the committee that we have come up
with a pretty good compromise, something that is going to reflect the
conditions in rural America, and something that we believe that is in
the best interest of rural America and the agriculture community.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just to reiterate the point made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
the Farm Credit System is a very important thing for rural America. It
provides credit to America's farmers and ranchers and is a necessary
and serious challenge to get that credit sometimes. There have been
times when business has been bad in rural America, and the Farm Credit
System has been there to stand up in good times and bad.
I appreciate the concerns raised by my friends in the banking
community. We want to make sure that there is fair treatment, given
that these are two different types of systems that operate, and we have
listened to them very carefully. We have held hearings. And as the
gentleman from Pennsylvania says, we worked very hard to come up with
something we thought was fair.
We did basically three things: One related to housing, one related to
lending in the energy area, and one dealing with cooperatives. All of
these things are simply looking to modernize the Farm Credit System to
deal with the fact that rural America and farming have changed
substantially from the last time there was any major address of this
issue back in the 1970s.
The rural population limit for home mortgages, as the gentleman from
Pennsylvania pointed out, is 2,500 population. It has not been updated
since 1971, and since then, over 700 communities have grown to the
point where they are not considered rural under the farm credit
definition, where you could get a farm credit loan in the past and now,
because of the increased population, you can't. So people who have been
doing business with farm credit sometimes for generations are no longer
able to do that. The law does not change the limitation on moderately
priced homes, owner-occupied, single-family homes.
We are simply trying to extend this to recognize that the population
of the country is growing, and, therefore, there ought to be
recognition of that. They asked for a very substantial increase, and we
thought that was well beyond what was contemplated by being able to
lend in rural areas.
Secondly, with regard to energy, there is no doubt that when times
are good, there are financial resources available, credit from a wide
array of sources. But as the ethanol boom started in this country,
there was not money available from some sources; so farm credit stepped
up to the plate.
In order for them to step up to the plate when the risk is higher,
they need to be able to have a viable system throughout, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama, the senior Republican on the Financial Affairs
Committee.
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, the Farm Credit System does fulfill a
valuable service to the farmers of America, and we have no argument
with that. But we all need to recognize that the Farm Credit System is
a government-sponsored entity. It has the benefits and privileges of a
government-sponsored entity, and the taxpayers underwrite its
operation.
Now, traditionally they have made what we call farm loans,
agricultural loans. There is much concern in the private lending
market, independent bankers, small-town bankers, credit unions and
thrifts that this role has been expanding. In fact, over half the loans
made by the Farm Credit System are to farmers or corporations valued at
over $1 million.

{time} 2215

Where they were making agricultural loans, agricultural mortgages,
now they're lending money to Cargill, ADM, Jack-in-the-Box, and retail
businesses.
This amendment is simply our way of saying that when you begin to
compete with small-town bankers, with thrifts, with credit unions, it
is a contact sport. And we need to take a step back and look at it. But
at this time, we don't believe that any expansion, in fact, I'd like to
submit for the Record a letter by Michael Reyna, who is the immediate
past chairman and CEO of the Farm Credit Administration, in which he
says that the pressure was always there to make off-farm loans, and he
submits this letter in support of our amendment.

[[Page H8729]]

Statement on the Frank/Bachus Amendement (#10) Submitted By Former Farm
Credit Administration (FCA) Chairman and CEO Michael M. Reyna (2000-
2004)

Man's best friend, protector, and hunting partner, the dog,
holds a special place in the heart of rural America. The Farm
Credit System (System) plays a very special role in rural
America, too. Congress established the System, the Nation's
oldest government sponsored enterprise (GSE), to achieve a
very special public policy goal: a dependable source of
credit for agriculture and rural America.
(21) Typically, GSEs are established, structured, and
intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
economic marketplace; a mechanism to free up capital for new
loans. And, as their name implies, GSEs are chartered by the
government and are given tax breaks and authority to issue
government backed debt obligations, among other special
advantages, to achieve their public policy goal.
Unlike other GSEs, the System--with its special government
breaks and authorities--directly competes as a retail lender
against its private sector counterparts, namely banks and
other financial institutions. Competition is a contact sport,
but fair is fair and it's not hard to understand why many
private sector lenders bristle when it comes to directly
competing against a public sector lender with special tax
breaks and a cheaper source of funds.
Striking a delicate balance, Congress wrote, and has
amended, the Farm Credit Act with an eye towards focusing the
public benefits of this GSE by limiting the types of loans
that the System can make as well as where and to whom these
loans can be made. Unsatisfied with the wisdom of Congress,
the System has applied relentless pressure in recent years on
its regulator, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), to grant
ever broader lending authority and even to issue ``no action
letters'' essentially giving System lenders a ``free pass''
to disobey the law. As the immediate past Chairman of the FCA
(2000 to 2004), I have directly experienced the System's
pressure to get the FCA to give the System what it wants.
``Private sector lenders are well aware of these efforts,
and the System's lending abuses are well-documented. And,
notwithstanding the public relations campaign relative to its
young, beginning, and small farmer lending efforts, the bulk
of the System's public benefit goes to commercial
agriculture--those farmers with retail sales in excess of one
million dollars annually. This fact alone suggests a thorough
review of whether the System is achieving its public policy
purpose is in order, particularly given that agricultural
concentration has increased as the number of commercially
viable farms in America continues to decline.
Rather than submitting a ``secret'' wish list of regulatory
changes it wants the FCA to make behind closed doors through
``notational votes,'' the System is now seemingly seeking to
broaden its lending authority directly from Congress, through
the Farm Bill (H.R. 2419). Seemingly, because when it comes
to legislation, the devil is in the details. A review of the
proposed language raises legitimate concerns about exactly
what authorities are being broadened and by how much. Without
greater specificity, the ambiguity will leave much to the
System's regulator to sort out. Would the three-member FCA
Board be a lapdog or a watchdog on these issues? Given its
close ties to the System, is there really any doubt how the
decisions would turn out?
The System's proposed changes to the Farm Credit Act are an
outgrowth of its HORIZONS Project, a multi-year effort
designed to justify an expansion of the System's off-farm
lending powers. And, therein lies its primary flaw--the
System's efforts are more about the System's growth and
profitability rather than the credit needs of agriculture and
rural America. When it comes to commercial agriculture,
competition among lenders is healthy and credit is available
and affordable. Consequently, there is no public policy
rationale to broaden the System's lending authority in this
area, let alone expand its lending authority beyond
agriculture either. In other words, ``That dog don't hunt.''
Private-sector lenders now provide ample home-mortgage
credit in towns with population between 2,500 and 6,000,
often by selling those mortgages to the System's fellow GSEs,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Not only is there not a mortgage
credit shortage in this population range, but authorizing the
System to lend in communities larger than 2,500 will distract
it from financing moderately-priced rural housing where it is
most needed.
Rather than responding to the System's relentless desire to
finance corporate agriculture, Congress should undertake a
comprehensive examination of the System's future role in
financing agriculture and rural America. Only after such a
detailed review should the Congress consider any expansion of
the System's off-farm lending authority. Therefore, the House
of Representatives should drop the HORIZONS provisions now in
the Farm Bill by voting for the Frank/Bachus amendment #10.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how
much time is remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania each have 1 minute.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself my
remaining minute.
I know my friends have said they sought a compromise. The only
problem is they had a unique motion here, it was the unilateral
compromise, they compromised with themselves. And they did a pretty
good job of compromising with themselves, but I think we need to
compromise with each other.
There are two committees here that have concerns: one about the
integrity of the banking system and not having non-banks get into the
banking system. This House is aware of that because we dealt with a
similar issue with regard to industrial loan corporations.
What we are saying here, the gentleman from Alabama and I, is we were
not previously told about a problem of a lack of availability of credit
from the banking system for alternative energy. If that exists, it
needs to be remedied. And as I've said, I've spoken to the chairman of
the full committee; I've spoken to my ranking member on our committee.
We're prepared to have joint hearings and be available for people to
document to us what the nature of the problem is, and then respond,
whether it's an increase in size, or what. But I do think the history
shows that we should be very careful about who gets into the banking
industry and who doesn't. The banking system ought to be preserved very
carefully.
Mr. HOLDEN. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for his comments. And I
just want to assure him that we can count votes as well.
Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to our friend from
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I serve on both Agriculture and
Financial Services, so I can look at this with a very jaundiced eye.
And I think what we have to do is make a decision in this move based
upon what the lay of the land is. First, we're talking about renewable
energy and ethanol. Where is that going to take place? It's going to
take place in the rural communities where the products, where the crops
are that will make renewable energy.
This proposal is tied very tight, and I think that farm credit
deserves to have an opportunity to compete in this new burgeoning
industry. The businesses that are made eligible are ones that process
or handle farm products that are directly used in renewable energy.
This is very tight. I do not believe that the farm credit needs to be
denied this opportunity. I do not think it blurs jurisdictional lines.
We should not close the door on an industry, an opportunity for farm
credit to provide a service that is not directly competitive with our
bankers.
Mr. GILLMOR. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Frank-Bachus amendment to H.R. 2419. This vast expansion of the Farm
Credit System is unnecessary and unwise. American businesses today
enjoy the best financial services marketplace in the world. There are
opportunities for credit at every turn. The current Farm Credit System
was set up in a different era to offer all the products and services of
a financial institution to farmers and farm-related small businesses.
A government sponsored enterprise for over 90 years, the Farm Credit
System remains the only GSE with direct lending authority. In towns of
2,500 people or less, this system is able to compete directly with
other lenders, but with major advantages given to them by their
government-sponsored status. The historical justification for this
special GSE status has been to focus the system on farmers and
companies that provide farm related services. The expansion which the
Farm Bill currently seeks would dramatically alter the mission of the
Farm Credit System and detract from its mission of helping farmers.
There is no need for the expansion of this government entity and there
is no vacuum to be filled.
Regardless of whether or not you disagree with the policy of the
expansion of the Farm Credit System, you can disagree with the process
used here to legislate. In a July letter to the Speaker, the Chairman
and Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee asked for a
sequential referral, yet were denied. While the Committee on
Agriculture clearly has jurisdiction over the Farm Credit System, the
Committee on Financial Services has jurisdiction over all extensions of
credit and a referral was justified.
In a recent letter written by the former regulator of the Farm Credit
System, Michael Reyna, we see an objective analysis of this expansion.
As Mr. Reyna mentions, the Farm

[[Page H8730]]

Credit System is seeking an expansion of their powers to move beyond
their historical focus. ``Therein lies its primary flaw--the System's
efforts are more about the System's growth and profitability rather
than the credit needs of agriculture and rural America. When it comes
to commercial agriculture, competition among lenders is healthy and
credit is available and affordable.''
Let's not fix what isn't broken. Let's keep our government-sponsored
lending operations tied to their original purpose and let's support the
Frank-Bachus amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The amendment was agreed to.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on the amendment printed in part B of the House Report 110-
261, on which further proceedings were postponed.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kind

The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 117,
noes 309, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 747]

AYES--117

Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Cooper
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dent
Dingell
Doggett
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Eshoo
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Harman
Heller
Hensarling
Hodes
Holt
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Keller
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lee
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Petri
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Sherman
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--309

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Christensen
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Feeney
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sali
Sarbanes
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--11

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Clarke
Cleaver
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Fortuno
Hastert
Hunter
Kennedy
LaHood
Young (AK)

{time} 2241

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland and Mr. FRANKS of Arizona changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr.
SHERMAN and Mr. WYNN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Boyda of Kansas) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through
fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.

____________________