[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 122 (Friday, July 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8747-H8757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2419.
{time} 0914
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural
programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Schiff (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Thursday, July 26, 2007, amendments numbered 1 and 2 printed in House
Report 110-261, as well as certain amendments en bloc, had been
disposed of.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Goodlatte:
At the end of subtitle A of title II (conservation), add
the following new section:
SEC. 2409. COMMON EASEMENT AUTHORITIES.
(a) In General.--The Food Security Act of 1985 is amended
by inserting after section 1230 (16 U.S.C. 3801) the
following new section:
``SEC. 1230A. COMMON EASEMENT AUTHORITIES.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Program.--In this section the term `program' means
the applicable program described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Applicability.--This section shall apply to the terms
and conditions of all easements purchased under authorities
of this subtitle:
``(A) The wetlands reserve program under subchapter C.
``(B) The farmland protection program under subchapter B of
Chapter 2.
``(C) The grassland reserve program under subchapter C of
Chapter 2.
``(D) The healthy forests reserve program, sections 501-508
of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C.
6571-6578).
``(3) Enrollment.--The Secretary may either directly, or
through an eligible entity, obtain an interest in eligible
land through--
``(A) a 30-year or permanent easement; or
``(B) in a State that imposes a maximum duration for
easements, an easement for the maximum duration allowed under
State law.
``(4) Holder of easement title.--The title holder of an
easement obtained under one of the programs described in
paragraph (2), in addition to the Secretary, or in lieu of
the Secretary, may be an eligible entity.
``(5) Establishing easement.--To become eligible to enroll
land in the program through an easement, the landowner or
eligible entity, as applicable, shall--
``(A) create and record an appropriate deed restriction in
accordance with applicable State law;
``(B) provide proof of unencumbered title to the underlying
fee interest in the land that is subject of the easement;
``(C) grant the easement to either the Secretary or an
eligible entity;
``(D) comply with the terms of the easement and any
restoration agreement; and
``(E) explicitly consent in writing to granting a security
interest in the land to either the Secretary or an eligible
entity.
``(6) Wetlands reserve program deeds.--A deed used to
record an easement under the wetlands reserve program in
subchapter C shall provide for sufficient protection of the
functions and values of the wetland or floodplain, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(7) Deed for other easement programs.--A deed used to
record an easement under all programs described in paragraph
(2) other than the wetlands reserve program shall be in the
form of a negative restrictive deed that--
``(A) is in a format prescribed by the Secretary;
``(B) details the rights obtained by the easement; and
``(C) allows for specific uses of the land, if the use is
consistent with the long-term protection of the purposes for
which the easement was established.
``(8) Acceptance of contributions.--The Secretary may
accept and use contributions of non-Federal funds to carry
out the administration or purpose the program.
``(9) Modification, transfer, or termination of easement.--
``(A) Modification.--The Secretary may modify an easement
acquired from, or a related agreement with, an owner or
eligible entity under one of the programs described under
paragraph (2) if--
``(i) the parties involved with the easement on the land
agree to such modification; and
``(ii) the Secretary determines that such modification is
desirable--
``(I) to carry out the program;
``(II) to facilitate administration of the program; or
``(III) to achieve such other goals as the Secretary
determines are appropriate.
``(B) Title transfer.--The Secretary may transfer title of
ownership of an easement to an eligible entity to hold and
enforce, in lieu of the Secretary, subject to the right of
the Secretary to conduct periodic inspections and enforce the
easement, if--
``(i) the Secretary determines that granting the transfer
would promote the protection of eligible land;
``(ii) the owner authorizes the eligible entity to hold and
enforce the easement;
``(iii) the eligible entity assuming the title agrees to
assume the costs incurred in administering and enforcing the
easement, including the costs of restoration or
rehabilitation of the land as specified by the owner and the
eligible entity; and
``(iv) the eligible entity, except for an eligible entity
under section 1238H(a)(1), has a commitment to protect the
conservation purpose of the easement and has the resources to
enforce the easement.
``(C) Termination.--The Secretary may terminate an easement
if--
``(i) the parties involved with such easement agree to such
termination; and
``(ii) the Secretary determines that such termination would
be in the public interest.
``(10) Violation.--Upon the violation of the terms or
conditions of an easement or other agreement entered into
under this section--
``(A) the easement shall remain in force; and
``(B) the Secretary may require the owner to refund all or
part of any payments received by the owner under the program,
with interest on the payments as determined appropriate by
the Secretary.
``(b) Easements Held by Secretary.--
[[Page H8748]]
``(1) Permanent easement valuation.--In return for the
granting of a permanent easement or an easement for the
maximum duration allowed under applicable State law by a
landowner under one of the programs described in subsection
(a)(2), the Secretary shall make payments to the landowner as
authorized under subparagraphs (A) and (B).
``(A) Valuation methods.--The method of valuation shall be
determined under the specific program involved.
``(B) Cost of restoration.--The Secretary shall tender a
monetary amount to the landowner that is not greater than an
amount corresponding to 100 percent of the eligible costs of
restoration.
``(2) 30 year easement valuation.--In return for granting a
30 year easement by a landowner, the Secretary shall make
payments to the landowner in an amount equal to--
``(A) not more than 75 percent of the amount that would
apply in paragraph (1)(A); and
``(B) not more than 75 percent of the eligible costs of
restoration.
``(3) Monetary donation.--A private landowner may make a
monetary donation equivalent to any amount of the actual
value of the easement.
``(c) Easements Acquired Through Eligible Entities.--
``(1) Easement held by eligible entity.--The Secretary
shall offer the opportunity to eligible entities to enter
into agreements for the purposes of purchasing and holding
easements for eligible lands in the program.
``(2) Easement valuation.--When enrolling eligible land
through an eligible entity, the share of the cost of the
Secretary to purchase a conservation easement or other
interest in eligible land shall not exceed 50 percent of the
fair market value based on an appraisal of the conservation
easement, using an industry approved methodology determined
by the entity.
``(3) Payments; donations.--
``(A) Landowner.--A private landowner may make a monetary
donation of up to 25 percent of the appraised fair market
value of the conservation easement or other interest in
eligible land.
``(B) Eligible entity.--An eligible entity shall make a
monetary payment of at least 25 percent of the appraised fair
market value of the conservation easement or other interest
in eligible land.
``(4) Type of deed.--An eligible entity obtaining an
easement under this subtitle shall use a negative restrictive
deed that provides for--
``(A) rights of all parties subject to the easement;
``(B) permissible uses of the land, if the use is
consistent with the purposes for which the easement was
established; and
``(C) terms and conditions of the eligible entity such as
purposes and administration of the easement, if the Secretary
finds that the terms and conditions are--
``(i) consistent with the purposes of the program; and
``(ii) provide for effective enforcement of the
conservation purposes of the conservation easement.
``(d) Federal Contingent Right of Enforcement.--The
Secretary may require the inclusion of a Federal contingent
right of enforcement or executory limitation in a
conservation easement or other interest in land for
conservation purposes purchased with Federal funds provided
under the program, in order to preserve the easement as a
party of last resort. The inclusion of such a right or
interest shall not be considered to be the Federal
acquisition of real property and the Federal standards and
procedures for land acquisition shall not apply to the
inclusion of the right or interest.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The following provisions of
subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3801 et seq.) are repealed:
(1) Subsections (c) through (g) of section 1237A.
(2) Section 1237C(b)(2).
(3) Section 1237E.
(4) Subsections (a)(1), (d), and (e) of section 1238O.
(5) Subsections (a)(2), (b)(1), and (c) of section 1238P.
(6) Section 1238Q.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment streamlines and adopts one
set of terms and conditions for easements for the Wetlands Reserve
Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the Farmland and Ranchland
Protection Program, and the Healthy Forest Reserve Program. This
greatly simplifies the process for the Department to purchase
easements, while leaving functions of the programs intact. It allows
for one set of rules on titleholders, establishment of easements, type
of deeds, acceptance of contributions, title transfer and reversionary
interest.
This amendment not only helps the Department to reduce inefficiencies
which result in administrative costs, but will help producers by
simplifying the process of obtaining easements for these programs.
This amendment does not consolidate any program. This simply sets up
one set of rules and regulations for easements. Each program has its
own application process, sign-up period, and administrative
requirements. Countless hours are wasted on administrative work because
each easement has its own set of rules.
This amendment makes an effort at streamlining these complex rules
and regulations into one set of rules with flexibility that is simple
and makes common sense.
Each of these individual programs retains their own mission. These
easement programs are implemented through landowners who voluntarily
agree to a deed restriction and some landscape and resource
restoration. Making the sign-up process for producers easier will allow
NRCS to focus on their true mission, which should be to provide
technical assistance to producers wanting to implement voluntary
conservation methods.
We have taken popular components of the Farmland and Ranchland
Protection Program, including the ability of third-party entities to
hold easements, and implemented them in a manner that all producers
interested in easements will be able to enjoy.
This amendment keeps the funding and missions of each easement
program intact. The amendment even keeps the appraisal method of each
program intact.
This is a commonsense amendment, a good government amendment, and a
producer-friendly amendment. And I ask for your support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I've been working with the
gentleman from Virginia on this issue, and I think he has some good
ideas here that we have been working through, but we just aren't at the
point where we're comfortable on this side at this point.
If I could engage in a conversation with the gentleman, as he knows,
I think that some of the elements of this are something that we should
do. It's just, as I said, we're not there yet.
In addition, as you know, I have an interest in looking at this issue
of NRCS doing administrative work within their agency. We've been
talking about that as well. I still believe that it would be better if
we transferred that function over to FSA like they're doing now at CRP.
So if the gentleman would agree, I am very much interested in working
with him on this issue. I think we can get something accomplished over
the next period of time until we end up in conference with the Senate.
So if the gentleman would be willing to withdraw, I will make the
commitment that we will work on this in a serious way, because I think
we can get something done here.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for his comments. He and I have
had discussions about this, and I think we are in agreement that there
needs to be significant reform of these programs.
As I've shared with the gentleman and others, there are farmers in my
district and elsewhere around the country who are very frustrated with
signing up for these programs. And, quite frankly, it is
counterproductive to have programs that are so complex, that require so
much paperwork, that require you to apply in several different places.
One farmer, a woman in my district, has done a fantastic job of
attempting to utilize these programs, but the frustration, the cost,
the amount of time involved discouraged her, as it has discouraged
others from even initiating the process to participate. And therefore,
I think it's in the interest of the stakeholders, the groups who want
to see more of these easements taken up, to make it an easier process.
And that includes not only streamlining the definition of easements in
this amendment, but looking
[[Page H8749]]
at whether some of these programs can be made to work together better.
I appreciate the gentleman's seriousness about undertaking this.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cardoza
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Cardoza:
At the end of subtitle E of title X add the following new
section:
SEC. __. RESTORATION OF IMPORT AND ENTRY AGRICULTURAL
INSPECTION FUNCTIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE.
(a) Repeal of Transfer of Functions.--Section 421 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 231) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Functions of Secretary of
Homeland Security.--Section 402 of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 202) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (7); and
(2) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (7).
(c) Transfer Agreement.--
(1) In general.--Not later than the effective date
specified in subsection (g), the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall enter into an
agreement to effectuate the return of functions required by
the amendments made by this section.
(2) Use of certain employees.--The agreement may include
authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to use employees
of the Department of Homeland Security to carry out
authorities delegated to the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service regarding the protection of domestic
livestock and plants.
(d) Restoration of Department of Agriculture Employees.--
Not later than the effective date specified in subsection
(g), all full-time equivalent positions of the Department of
Agriculture transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security under section 421(g) of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 231(g)) (as in effect on the day before such
effective date) shall be restored to the Department of
Agriculture.
(e) Authority of APHIS.--
(1) Establishment of program.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall establish within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service a program, to be known as the ``International
Agricultural Inspection Program'', under which the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (referred to in this subsection as the
``Administrator'') shall carry out import and entry
agricultural inspections.
(2) Information gathering and inspections.--In carrying out
the program under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall have
full access to--
(A) each secure area of any terminal for screening
passengers or cargo under the control of the Department of
Homeland Security on the day before the date of enactment of
this Act for purposes of carrying out inspections and
gathering information; and
(B) each database (including any database relating to cargo
manifests or employee and business records) under the control
of the Department of Homeland Security on the day before the
date of enactment of this Act for purposes of gathering
information.
(3) Inspection alerts.--The Administrator may issue
inspection alerts, including by indicating cargo to be held
for immediate inspection.
(4) Inspection user fees.--The Administrator may, as
applicable--
(A) continue to collect any agricultural quarantine
inspection user fee; and
(B) administer any reserve account for the fees.
(5) Career track program.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a
program, to be known as the ``import and entry agriculture
inspector career track program'', to support the development
of long-term career professionals with expertise in import
and entry agriculture inspection.
(B) Strategic plan and training.--In carrying out the
program under this paragraph, the Administrator, in
coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall--
(i) develop a strategic plan to incorporate import and
entry agricultural inspectors into the infrastructure
protecting food, fiber, forests, bioenergy, and the
environment of the United States from animal and plant pests,
diseases, and noxious weeds; and
(ii) as part of the plan under clause (i), provide training
for import and entry agricultural inspectors participating in
the program not less frequently than once each year to
improve inspection skills.
(f) Duties of Secretary of Agriculture.--
(1) Operating procedures and tracking system.--The
Secretary of Agriculture shall--
(A) develop standard operating procedures for inspection,
monitoring, and auditing relating to import and entry
agricultural inspections, in accordance with recommendations
from the Comptroller General of the United States and reports
of interagency advisory groups, as applicable; and
(B) ensure that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service has a national electronic system with real-time
tracking capability for monitoring, tracking, and reporting
inspection activities of the Service.
(2) Federal and state cooperation.--
(A) Communication system.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall develop and maintain an integrated, real-time
communication system with respect to import and entry
agricultural inspections to alert State departments of
agriculture of significant inspection findings of the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service.
(3) Funding.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall pay the
costs of each import and entry agricultural inspector
employed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
from amounts made available to the Department of Agriculture
for the applicable fiscal year.
(g) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and at least annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing an
assessment of--
(1) the resource needs for import and entry agricultural
inspection, including the number of inspectors required;
(2) the adequacy of--
(A) inspection and monitoring procedures and facilities in
the United States; and
(B) the strategic plan developed under subsection
(e)(5)(B)(i); and
(3) new and potential technologies and practices, including
recommendations regarding the technologies and practices, to
improve import and entry agricultural inspection.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardoza) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the CBO has determined
that my amendment violates the PAYGO rules. As such, I would like to
engage the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the chairman of
the Homeland Security Committee in a colloquy.
As you both well know, buried within the authorization of the
Homeland Security Department was a little-known provision that mandated
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's 1,800 agricultural
inspectors move from USDA to the newly created Department of Homeland
Security Customs and Border Protection Division.
This move was made in order to consolidate custom and border
enforcement into one agency, a decision I'm sure was made with all good
intentions in mind. However, as the GAO has recently reported, since
the transfer of these USDA employees, Customs and Border Protection has
not developed sufficient performance measures to take into account the
agency's expanded mission or to consider all pathways by which
prohibited agricultural items or foreign pests may enter the country.
Mr. Chairman, this deficiency in our border security cannot and
should not be tolerated. Stopping foreign pests and prohibited
agricultural products from entering the United States might not be as
sexy as stopping terrorists, weapons, or drugs, but it is certainly as
important.
These are six-legged terrorists, Mr. Chairman, that can wreak havoc
on our Nation's agricultural industry, costing billions of taxpayer
dollars in eradication efforts and decimate our ability to access new
export markets.
I would like your assurances that by withdrawing this amendment I
have the commitment from both of you to work with me on this issue.
While I certainly would prefer to see these employees moved
immediately back to USDA, where I believe they belong, my greater
concern is that wherever they are right now, they must certainly have
the tools and resources at their disposal to do their job effectively
and efficiently.
I would like to have a hearing on the staffing, training and morale
problems that persist within the agency. I also believe that we should
direct USDA and the Department of Homeland Security to develop
standardized, reputable
[[Page H8750]]
training programs that properly identify and assess the major threats
posed by foreign agricultural pests and disease.
I believe USDA and Homeland Security should be required to fully and
accurately account for all agricultural quarantine inspection fees. But
perhaps most importantly, I want this issue to have the attention it
deserves from both Agriculture and Homeland Security Committees.
Preventing pest and disease infestation is a paramount concern to all
of American agriculture, but primarily to our specialty crop industry.
I have vowed to fight for them on this issue and would appreciate your
help in ensuring their concerns are met.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the
gentleman from California that, as Chair of the House Homeland Security
Committee, I look forward to working with him.
The border issue, from a security standpoint, as you know, is a major
issue. Customs and Border Patrol should have more training in this
area. I look forward to joint hearings with the Agriculture Committee
on this, and subsequent to the findings of those hearings, look forward
to strengthening our borders.
I must express my reservations to using the farm bill as a
legislative vehicle to transfer agriculture import inspectors from the
Department of Homeland Security to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress, in March
of 2003 consolidated and transferred critical responsibility for
inspections of passenger and agricultural commodities from USDA Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Since the transfer of APHIS inspectors to DHS, DHS had dedicated
considerable resources to enhancing agriculture inspections to protect
the nation from economically devastating agricultural pests and
diseases. I agree that the Department of Homeland Security, especially
Customs and Border Protection, must improve its training.
While DHS has experienced some challenges in implementing this
enhanced inspection regime, those challenges are not insurmountable. As
a former Agriculture Committee Member and representing many agriculture
interests, I am very concerned about any breaches at the border,
including foreign pest and prohibited agricultural products.
Though DHS carries out the inspections, USDA maintains the
responsibility for establishing the regulations, guidelines, and even
the training that govern the import of agricultural products. Thus, it
is important to note that the success or failure of the program
requires both DHS and USDA coordinated efforts.
Transferring employees at this time would divert attention from the
real mission, delay any efforts to identify needed improvements, and
set the program back for another several years while yet another
readjustment occurs for both USDA and DHS. A far better approach than
another disruptive, time-consuming transfer of thousands of employees
would be for USDA and DHS to commit to conducting a thorough analysis
of the program's performance, agree to a specific action plan for
improvements, and to set clear and measurable goals.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cardoza, I am committed to working with you on
this issue and would like to hold a joint hearing on this matter. I
thank the gentleman for raising this important issue and look forward
to working with you and Chairman Peterson immediately on this issue.
May 22, 2007.
Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thompson: We write to you today regarding the
recent consideration given to the proposed removal of the
agricultural inspection function from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), and relocation of this function to the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), as included in S. 887 and other legislation
pending in Congress. USDA and DHS oppose this legislative
proposal. We both take seriously the shared mission of
protecting our Nation from foreign plant and animal diseases,
as well as securing our homeland against unintentional and
intentional threats to our agriculture and food supply.
The creation of DHS was a thoughtful complex, and ambitious
integration effort. We strongly believe that Congress, which
recently mandated an extensive internal reorganization of
DHS, should now give DHS the organizational stability it
needs to succeed with its vital homeland security mission.
USDA, DHS, and our agriculture stakeholders all share a
common goal--protecting American agriculture. However, both
USDA and DHS strongly believe that another disruptive, time-
consuming transfer of thousands of employees and the
agricultural inspection function, as advocated by some, would
degrade enforcement and seriously undermine the integrated
border enforcement capabilities created with the formation of
DHS. A transfer would divert attention from the real mission
to prevent the entry of harmful plant and animal pests,
disease, and threats to our agricultural resources and food
supply. A transfer would delay efforts to identify needed
improvements in agricultural inspection and would therefore
set the agricultural inspection program back while also
creating counterproductive management and employee churn for
both USDA and DHS. Working cooperatively, USDA and DHS
employees have made much progress and have strengthened their
partnership in forming a unified first line of defense in
performing their missions and delivering agricultural
programs.
On March 1, 2003, the responsibility for the inspection of
goods and travelers for illegal agricultural products or
pests arriving in the United States was transferred from USDA
to the then-newly created CBP within DHS. The transfer of
this function was among the first steps in establishing CBP
as the single, unified agency responsible for managing and
securing our Nation's ports-of-entry. Another important part
of the creation of CBP was the development of two new
positions to respond to new and expanded border security
needs: the CBP Officer and the CBP Agriculture Specialist
(CBPAS).
CBP Officers are responsible for a wide range of duties
including preventing the entry of terrorists and their
weapons and conducting traditional inspection activities
related to trade, contraband enforcement, and admissibility--
as well as the important agricultural inspection function. In
this regard, CBP Officers receive specialized cross-training
related to agricultural risk and inspection referral. CBPASs
fill the role of the former APHIS inspectors and conduct
activities to prevent harmful plant and animal pests and
diseases from entering the United States while guarding
against agro/bio-terrorism.
Today, CBP Agriculture Specialists receive the same amount
of agriculture-specific training as they did when they were
part of USDA. The eight weeks of agriculture-specific
training that CBPASs receive, conducted by USDA instructors,
ensures that they are fully prepared for their role at the
border. In addition to traditional agricultural enforcement,
CBPASs play a crucial role in educating other CBP officers
about the agricultural inspection process, thus enhancing the
agricultural knowledge of all personnel at ports-of-entry.
Importantly, CBP has increased CBPAS staffing in the field by
over 30 percent, providing coverage at over 157 ports-of-
entry since the merger on March 1, 2003. The deployment of
both CBPASs (over 2,000) and cross-trained CBP Officers
(18,000) to search for agricultural threats has resulted in a
force multiplier that improves implementing the agricultural
inspection program. The proposal to remove agricultural
inspections from DHS would wholly undermine the force
multiplier achieved by cross-training.
With the creation of CBP, USDA continued to retain the
majority of agricultural functions, including responsibility
for establishing regulations and guidelines that govern the
import of agricultural products, pest identification,
inspection of propagative material, risk assessment, and
methods development. CBP, of course, retained border
inspection responsibilities. While USDA continues to
establish agricultural policy governing imports, it is the
significant cooperation between the two Departments that has
enabled the agricultural inspection program to advance and
meet the new challenges of the growing global marketplace.
USDA and DHS have worked tirelessly to integrate the
important duties and responsibilities of the scientific
mission of agricultural inspection with CBP's other missions.
American agriculture remains at risk from external threats.
Our joint efforts must continue to prepare us for the threat
of unintentional or intentional introduction of foreign plant
or animal pests or pathogens into our country. These
potential threats could devastate American crops or
livestock, which is why the incorporation of the two CBP line
positions plays such an important role in DHS's multi-layered
approach to protect U.S. agricultural resources.
USDA and DHS are committed to working in partnership to
safeguard American agriculture by detecting and preventing
harmful plant and animal pests and diseases through training
initiatives, trend analysis, targeting initiatives, and the
development of special programs like the National Agriculture
Release Program. As part of this commitment, USDA and DHS are
forming a task force to address the concerns of our
agriculture stakeholders, as well as issues raised about the
agricultural inspection program in reports from the
Government Accountability Office and USDA's Office of the
Inspector General. Through this task force, USDA and DHS will
take important steps to continue to improve the program by
conducting a thorough analysis of the program's performance,
agreeing to a specific action plan for improvements, and
setting clear and measurable goals to hold the agencies
accountable for protecting America from
[[Page H8751]]
threats to our agriculture. We believe this is a far more
productive course of action than the transfer of employees
and the agricultural inspection function back to USDA, and it
will achieve the common goal of protecting U.S. agricultural
resources. USDA and DHS stand together as partners and value
our cooperative efforts, our joint missions, and our
employees.
Sincerely,
Mike Johanns,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman from California yield?
Mr. CARDOZA. I have been working closely with Congressman Adam Putnam
on this issue, and I would be happy to yield to my friend from Virginia
on this issue.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman.
I want to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment. I want
to commend the gentleman from Mississippi for his willingness to hold
hearings on this issue.
I was chairman of the committee at the time that the Homeland
Security Department and Committee were created and served on that
committee for 2 years, and the problems were already becoming apparent
at the outset that the nature of most of the operations of homeland
security very much differ from this effort to deal with animal and
plant pests that are entering this country. And we really do need to
make sure that this function of the Department is operating in the
fashion that it was operating when it was under the control of the
Department of Agriculture, that we're not losing people with the kind
of expertise that's necessary to be able to detect and keep these pests
out of the country. And I hope that this dialogue will lead to an
effort to enhance that effort.
Mr. CARDOZA. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDOZA. I will yield.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I, as well, want to commend the gentleman
from California and the gentleman from Mississippi for their
willingness to work with us on this issue, as well as the ranking
member.
We, on the committee, have an investigator that does work for us. And
this last year he went out and traveled around the country, talked to a
lot of folks involved in this area. And we have some troubling feedback
that we got in that report. And I think it's appropriate that we all
that are involved in this get together and have hearings to get to the
bottom of this to make sure that we not only are securing our borders,
but we also are doing the best job that we can to make sure that the
food coming into this country is secure and safe and the process is not
overly bureaucratic.
So I thank the gentlemen for their leadership and look forward to
working with all of them on this issue as we go forward.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Boustany
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Boustany:
At the end of subtitle A of title XI, add the following new
section:
SEC. 11013. DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN SWEET POTATO PRODUCTION.
In the case of sweet potatoes, Risk Management Agency Pilot
Program data shall not be considered for purposes of
determining production for the 2005-2006 Farm Service Agency
Crop Disaster Program.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Peterson and
Ranking Member Goodlatte, the Democratic staff of the committee and the
Republican staff of the committee for working with my staffer, Michael
Hare, on this amendment. I think it's a very important amendment.
I am pleased to offer this with my colleague and good friend, Mr.
Alexander, from Louisiana as well.
Sweet potato farmers throughout the Nation are involved in an
insurance pilot program being administered by the Risk Management
Agency. This is a multi-year process which involves many adjustments
along the way. The biggest problem was a change made by RMA that
defines what qualifies as a marketable sweet potato.
The new definition of the term ``marketable'' includes all sweet
potatoes over 1\1/2\ inches in diameter. Unfortunately, this definition
does not allow for any sweet potato that has been ruined and is
considered unmarketable from being deducted from the total yield
calculation.
Sweet potato farmers in Louisiana, as well as in many other parts of
the country, suffered heavy rains in September and October of 2005.
While these heavy rains led to significant yield losses, sweet potatoes
that were over 1\1/2\ inches in diameter were counted as a part of the
total yield. By counting the sweet potatoes ruined by heavy rains,
farmers were unable to qualify for disaster payments.
Our amendment would simply use the data collected by the local FSA
offices instead of the RMA to be used for the purposes of determining
crop losses.
{time} 0930
These local offices already have the production yield information for
the 2005-2006 crop year and will be able to certify if a sweet potato
farmer is eligible, indeed, for disaster payment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear: this amendment will only apply to
farmers who purchased crop insurance and had a 35 percent crop loss.
This amendment simply corrects a technical error made by RMA.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that we support our sweet potato
farmers and adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I said, I support the gentleman's amendment. I understand the
gentleman's frustration with RMA and how it is on operating this crop
insurance program for sweet potatoes. We have similar frustrations in
our area in some other projects that we have been working on. I have
heard from many of my farmers about this as well. That is why once we
finish this farm bill, the committee is going to conduct a thorough,
top-to-bottom review of all our operations down at USDA, especially at
RMA.
So I appreciate the gentleman's fighting for his farmers. Given my
understanding that this amendment does not score, I urge my colleagues
to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Peterson for his work
and his support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
we proceed out of order so that the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means,
can offer his amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's request cannot be entertained in
the Committee of the Whole.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H8752]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At an appropriate place in title IV, insert the following
(and make such technical and conforming changes as may be
appropriate):
SEC. ___ SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that food items provided
pursuant to the Federal school breakfast and school lunch
program should be selected so as to reduce the incidence of
juvenile obesity and to maximize nutritional value.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me acknowledge the chairman of the full committee,
Mr. Peterson, and the ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte. I, too, was trying
to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
But I am sure that we will have an affirmation, hopefully, of the
spirit of this amendment and ask my colleagues before I start to
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to affirm family farmers around America. I rise
proudly to acknowledge the importance of family farmers and the
American agricultural industry in feeding not only America, but feeding
the world. This bill, in particular, does a great amount as relates to
improving nutrition, providing food for hungry children, and, of
course, serving the world, particularly those in need of food.
It goes a long way in providing for black farmers and those who are
socially disadvantaged or have land that needs conservation or needs
the sharing of technology. I look forward to working with the chairman
on those issues as we move forward.
But I rise today to offer an amendment that reaffirms the importance
of nutritious meals for our young people, and the importance of the
young people who eat school breakfasts and school lunches to have
nutritious meals.
This map may not necessarily speak to the idea of school lunches and
school breakfasts, but the vastness of this map shows how big America
is and the number of people on food stamps. You can imagine that the
number of people on food stamps have children who go to school in need
of a school breakfast and a school lunch.
Obesity in America is a health crisis. My amendment simply asks that
we reaffirm, as a Congress, that those school lunches and those school
breakfasts will be nutritionally based to overcome juvenile obesity and
to ensure nutritious meals.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentlewoman's leadership on this issue. I think this is a very good
amendment. We appreciate her interest in promoting healthy foods in
schools. That is something that the committee is very much interested
in. We support your amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 25
seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, childhood obesity is a growing problem in
our country. We already know that obesity leads to a greater risk of
heart disease, diabetes and a host of other cardiovascular problems.
According to data from a California physical fitness testing program,
among fifth, seventh and eighth graders in Los Angeles County public
schools, 22 percent of students are overweight. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Los Angeles high
schools, 16 percent of students were overweight and 18 percent are at
risk of becoming overweight.
Mr. Chairman, this alarming trend in childhood obesity is not only a
problem for Los Angeles, but for our Nation. Seventeen percent of our
Nation's children aged 12 through 19 are overweight. Overweight
children and adolescents are more likely to become obese as adults.
If we want to reverse this trend and effectively reduce childhood
obesity, we need to ensure that school breakfasts and school lunch
programs clearly communicate the dangers of obesity and the importance
of nutrition and physical fitness.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the Chair has agreed to take the
Jackson-Lee amendment to underscore the importance of this issue.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me quickly say this amendment is supported by the
National Farmers Union, and it is a sense of Congress that food items
provided pursuant to the Federal School Breakfast Program and School
Lunch Program should be selected so as to reduce the incidence of
juvenile obesity and to maximize nutritional value.
Very quickly, African American and Hispanic families have the
greatest risk for overweight and obesity, and youngsters from lower-
income families have a higher risk for obesity than those from higher
income. More than 40 percent of African American teenagers are
overweight. Nearly 25 percent are obese. Hispanic children have the
highest lifetime risk of diabetes, 52 percent for boys, 45 percent for
girls, followed closely by African American children.
This would be a very crucial statement made by this body, a
bipartisan statement, that we not only support America's farmers, but
we support the nutritional eating of our children in programs that are
federally funded. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment
because obesity is at epidemic proportion in America; and I look
forward to working with this committee as we promote nutrition, not
only in the United States, but around the world.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the Farm Nutrition, and
Bioenergy Act of 2007, the Farm Bill. Let me first thank my
distinguished colleague Chairman Peterson for his extraordinary
leadership and guidance in crafting this bill. The Farm Bill will go a
long way to feed the hungry, increase access to childcare for low-
income parents, help the environment, increase opportunities for
alternative energy and promote healthy food choices. H.R. 2419 will
play a crucial role in continuing to provide a strong support system
for many of this Nation's neediest families. H.R. 2419 reauthorizes
nutrition programs, which account for two thirds of the bill's funding,
to help low income families in need. This includes the extremely
important Food Stamp Program that keeps many Americans from going
hungry. In fact, the Farm Bill increases the minimum benefit under the
Food Stamp Program for the first time in 30 years, and also adjusts the
increase to inflation. I am particularly pleased to note that the bill
eliminates the current cap on childcare costs to help the working poor
meet rising costs. In addition, it nearly doubles the funding for the
Emergency Food Assistant Program and expands the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Snack Program to all 50 States.
A HEALTHY INVESTMENT
The legislation makes historic investments in programs to support
fruit and vegetable producers who have not received traditional Farm
Bill benefits. The bill provides $1.6 billion in funding for fruit and
vegetable programs, including nutrition, research, pest management and
trade promotion programs. It increases and expands the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Snack Program to schools in all 50 States and allows Senior
Farmers Markets to expand six-fold. The bill provides mandatory funding
for organic certification cost share and authorizes a new incentive
payment program for farmers wanting to convert to organic production.
Mr. Chairman, the nutrition section of the H.R. 2419 will go a long
way to combat the obesity crisis in this country. Emphasizing the
importance of nutrition in this bill will give us some hope that we can
find very real solutions to curtail the increasing rates of obesity in
our communities and the extremely serious health consequences that
result from these high obesity rates. In fact, that is why I offered an
amendment to the Farm Bill. My amendment is simple but makes an
important contribution to the legislation. The amendment, which is
strongly supported by the National Farmer's Union, simply provides
that: ``It is the sense of the Congress that food items provided
pursuant to the Federal school breakfast and school lunch program
should be selected so as to reduce the incidence of juvenile obesity
and to maximize nutritional value.''
Mr. Chairman, we cannot wait any longer to provide every opportunity
for our children to receive nutritious meals and, in turn, reverse the
alarming rates of childhood obesity. Although the obesity rates among
all Americans are alarming, the obesity rates among African-
[[Page H8753]]
American and Latino communities are particularly astonishing. As chair
of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I have a special concern to
bring attention to the childhood obesity epidemic among African-
Americans and Latino communities.
Earlier this year, my office in concert with the office of
Congressman Edolphus Towns and the Congressional Black Caucus
Foundation, held a widely-attended issue forum entitled, ``Childhood
Obesity: Factors That Are Contributing to the Disproportionate
Prevalence in Low Income Communities.'' At this forum, a panel of
professionals from medicine, academia and research, nutrition, and the
food industry discussed the disturbing increasing rates of childhood
obesity in minority and low-income communities, and the factors that
are contributing to the prevalence in these communities.
What we know is that our children are consuming less nutritious foods
and that they do not get sufficient physical exercise. This combination
has led to the obesity epidemic as well as various directly-related
consequences. We must find ways to remove them.
Consider these facts:
Obesity is widely recognized as one of the most pressing health
threats to children and families across the country.
Today, one-third of American children and adolescents are either
obese or at risk of becoming obese.
There are serious health implications associated with obesity for
children, including increased risk for developing heart disease, type 2
diabetes, stroke, orthopedic problems, and asthma. When ethnicity and
income are considered, the picture is even more troubling.
African-American and Hispanic families have the greatest risk for
overweight and obesity, and youngsters from lower-income families have
a higher risk for obesity than those from higher-income families.
More than 40 percent of African-American teenagers are overweight,
and nearly 25 percent are obese.
Hispanic children have the highest lifetime risk of diabetes (52
percent for boys, 45 percent for girls), followed closely by African-
American children (49 percent for boys, 40 percent for girls).
Since the mid-seventies, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has
increased sharply for both adults and children. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, among adults aged 20-
74 years the prevalence of obesity increased from 15.0 percent (in the
1976-1980 survey) to 32.9 percent (in the 2003-2004 survey). There were
also increases in overweight among children and teens. For children
aged 2-5 years, the prevalence of overweight increased from 5.0 percent
to 13.9 percent; for those aged 6-11 years, prevalence increased from
6.5 percent to 18.8 percent; and for those aged 12-19 years, prevalence
increased from 5.0 percent to 17.4 percent.
These increasing rates raise concern because of their implications
for Americans' health. Being overweight or obese increases the risk of
many diseases and health conditions, including the following:
hypertension; dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high
levels of triglycerides); type 2 diabetes; coronary heart disease;
stroke; gallbladder disease; osteoarthritis; sleep apnea and
respiratory problems; and some cancers: (endometrial, breast, and
colon).
We must stop the obesity trends now. We cannot afford the health cost
or financial cost that are resulting and will continue to result from
the alarming obesity rates in this country.
Amendment to H.R. 2844
I also offered a nutrition-related amendment to H.R. 2844, ``The Food
Security and Agricultural Development Act of 2007.'' That amendment
contains two simple, but very important, provisions. It states that it
is U.S. policy to use non-emergency food aid to work to ensure that all
members of a community, and particularly children, receive proper
nutrition. It also recognizes the importance of non-emergency aid in
mitigating the catastrophic effects of potential future emergencies.
Malnutrition remains a significant problem worldwide, particularly
among children. According to the United Nations World Food Programme,
severe acute malnutrition affects an estimated 20 million children
under 5 worldwide. It kills approximately 1 million children each year,
or an average of one every 30 seconds. According to UNICEF Director Ann
M. Veneman, malnutrition plays some part in 53 percent of all deaths of
children under 5. When an emergency situation does arise, malnutrition
increases dramatically and kills most quickly.
These statistics are absolutely staggering. They are unnecessary. The
World Food Programme estimates that, when implemented on a large scale
and combined with hospital treatment for children who suffer
complications, a community-based approach to combating malnutrition
could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children each year.
My amendment recognizes the need to meet a community's nutritional
needs, particularly those of the children. It highlights the need for
non-emergency assistance to address these devastating, long-term
deficiencies. There are strong links between a lack of development and
the effects of humanitarian emergencies, and the second part of my
amendment highlights these. This legislation takes the very important
step of setting aside $600,000,000 specifically for non-emergency
programs, recognizing the need to finance development. We must act to
ensure that the world's most vulnerable populations have access to the
long-term solutions that will permit them to fight off hunger, not just
in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophe, but in the years and
decades to come.
improvement of the environment and protection of open spaces
The 2007 Farm Bill makes conservation a cornerstone of agriculture
for all producers in all regions of the country. The bill increases
funding and access to conservation programs to preserve farm and
ranchland, improve water quality and quantity, and enhance soil
conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitat on working lands.
stimulation of rural economies
The 2007 Farm Bill also includes key provisions that invest in rural
communities nationwide, including economic development programs that
target rural areas in need and broadband telecommunication services to
bridge the digital divide and provide access to rural, underserved
areas.
security of america's energy future
The 2007 Farm Bill boosts funding for renewable energy programs by
600 percent. It encourages the production of renewable energy,
including biofuels and biobased products that protects our environment
and encourages energy independence. It also provides loan guarantees
for the development of biorefineries that process biofuels from
dedicated energy crops and agriculture and forestry waste materials, a
key step toward bringing more renewable fuels to market in America.
Mr. Chairman, the reauthorization of the Farm Bill presents an
opportunity for our Nation to have a food system that is more just and
sustainable. Current policy in the United States has not adequately met
the needs of people living in poverty, small and mid-sized farmers, or
of rural America; nor has it been effective in protecting the
environment in which we must live. We can do better. Now is the time
for us to make a real difference in the lives of people across our
nation and around the world. We can do just that with passage of H.R.
2419. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in part B of
House Report 110-261.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Rangel
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Rangel:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new sections:
SEC. __. CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT TERMS UNDER THE TRADE
SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF
2000.
Section 908(b)(4) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7207(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) the term `payment of cash in advance' means,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the payment by
the purchaser of an agricultural commodity or product and the
receipt of such payment by the seller prior to--
``(i) the transfer of title of such commodity or product to
the purchaser; and
``(ii) the release of control of such commodity or product
to the purchaser.''.
[[Page H8754]]
SEC. __. AUTHORIZATION OF DIRECT TRANSFERS BETWEEN CUBAN AND
UNITED STATES FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE
TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT
ACT OF 2000.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the President may not restrict direct transfers from a
Cuban depository institution to a United States depository
institution executed in payment for a product authorized for
sale under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement
Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
(b) Depository Institution Defined.--In this section, the
term ``depository institution'' means any entity that is
engaged primarily in the business of banking (including a
bank, savings bank, savings association, credit union, trust
company, or bank holding company).
SEC. __. ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO CONDUCT ACTIVITIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND
EXPORT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of
a Cuban national whose itinerary documents an intent to
conduct activities, including phytosanitary inspections,
related to purchasing United States agricultural goods under
the provisions of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000, a consular officer (as defined in
section 101(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(9))) may issue a nonimmigrant visa under
section 101(a)(15)(B) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(B))
to the national, if the national is not inadmissible to the
United States under section 212 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me once again thank the chairman of the
committee and the ranking member for the bipartisan work that they have
put into allowing this great bill to reach the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is going to be a real win for
America and a win for American farmers and a win for democracy. What it
allows is that the people in Cuba can purchase hundreds of millions of
dollars of goods from our farmers and be able to pay directly to U.S.
banks without going through the red tape with the restrictions that we
have on their visas and having to go to third countries.
Close to 50 years ago, someone came up with the great idea that in
order to get rid of Castro and the communist government, that we should
put an embargo on that country, which, of course, included food
products that our great farmers are producing. Well, what has happened
is that Castro is still there and we have gone through 10 presidents,
and we are the only country that it appears as though has this embargo,
which is truly ineffective.
Having said that, it would just seem to me that if we really want to
win the hearts and minds of the people in Cuba, that we should make it
abundantly clear that our greatest salesmen are our farmers, to be able
to give food and nutrition to these people, and the money comes here
and the food goes there. Hugo Chavez may be there trying to give them
oil, but the poor people in Cuba can't eat oil. So this would open up
the markets by hundreds of millions of dollars for wheat, pork,
chicken, rice and beans, instead of having the Cubans go to Thailand
and Europe, and indeed to go to Communist China.
Now, I know there is a lot of fear about communists, but if you take
a look at our deficit with the People's Republic of China, if you see
our exploding exchange with the communist government of Vietnam, give
me a break. This has nothing to do with communism, very little to do
with Cuba, and a heck of a lot to do as to how people are going to vote
in Miami and in Florida as relates to Republicans and Democrats.
So we have a great opportunity to do what America does best: compete
on the open market of competition. Let's try to take local and domestic
politics out of it.
I know it is difficult, because those who oppose this, they don't
like Castro. Well, I am 77 years old. Forty years of that has been
fighting Castro with an embargo. Young people, that is not going to
work.
{time} 0945
If you want to get rid of Castro, let American enterprise,
capitalism, farmers, food, liberty, justice, get that into Cuba, and
that will bring the old man down.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this
amendment that rewards a state sponsor of terrorism with unfettered
access to our banks and increases the threat to our country. It
condones terrorist financing through our banking system. We do not
allow other state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, Syria, Sudan,
and North Korea, to have direct access to U.S. banks.
During a visit with Iran's Ayatollah in May 2001, Castro declared
that together Cuba and Iran will bring America to its knees. We should
not allow the Cuban regime to access U.S. bank accounts.
And then there is the troubling provision to expedite visas for so-
called Cuban agricultural inspectors. This would give free rein to any
intelligence agent that the Cuban Government designates as an
agricultural investigator to come to the United States. We should not
open our borders to any Cuban agent to roam freely throughout the
United States under the guise of being agricultural inspectors.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
his outstanding leadership on this issue now and in the past. This is
something that I support.
A recent report by the U.S. International Trade Commission shows the
United States was a main supplier of ag products to Cuba last year,
accounting for 30 percent of the island's imports. This report
indicates that number could increase to 50 percent if the United States
would only end some of its decades-long restrictions on trade between
the two nations. This report shows that lifting the trade and travel
restrictions against Cuba can have a real effect on the U.S. farm
economy.
Unfortunately, since 2000, American farmers and other ag exporters
have been allowed to sell goods to Cuba only on a cash-only basis. So
with elimination of all such travel and trade restrictions, U.S.
exports to Cuba could almost double from the 2006 level. The largest
gains would be fresh fruits, vegetables, milk powder, processed foods,
and certain meats.
This amendment is long overdue and would take care of those factors
and finally allow our ag producers to benefit from Cuban trade.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chairman
of the appropriations subcommittee of the Legislative Branch.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Chairman
Peterson for an excellent farm bill which I support and look forward to
supporting, assuming this amendment is not added to it.
I do have the utmost respect for the gentleman from New York and have
enjoyed my time serving with him in the House of Representatives, but I
rise in opposition to his amendment which provides the Cuban regime
with the ability to open bank accounts in the United States and obtain
visas for regime officials to visit U.S. production facilities.
I strongly support the farm bill, but this amendment needlessly adds
a volatile political issue to this important bill.
Cuba is one of five countries in the world that is a state sponsor of
terror, along with North Korea, Iran, Syria and Sudan. This amendment
would allow access to our financial institutions by a regime that is
and maintains close relationships with other state sponsors of
terrorism.
Recently, we have been especially vigilant about not allowing access
to our financial institutions since 9/11. We adopted the Bank Secrecy
Act. We have made sure there are countless accountability measures to
ensure that financial institutions have the ability
[[Page H8755]]
to protect themselves from people who would do us harm, and this
amendment would go in the opposite direction.
Additionally, regular Cuban citizens are prohibited from engaging in
private economic activity; thus, general agricultural licenses will
only serve the purpose of allowing agents of the Cuban Government into
the United States.
Finally, I want to remind Members that while the Castro regime seeks
U.S. concessions to finance its existence, it has consistently rejected
offers of direct U.S. humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people.
I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. The Cuban people
stand at the cusp of actualizing their dreams of freedom. It is our
duty to stand by them during this historic time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the United
States does a lot of trading back and forth with Pakistan. Today we
understand, in fact, that Osama bin Laden may be hiding in the hills in
Pakistan, so let's get this record straight here.
This is about only having Cuba to pay cash in advance, cash in
advance for any products that are shipped. It also says that the U.S.
Government has created unreasonable obstacles to American
businesspeople in their trade with Cuba, which can average $2 billion
in agricultural products.
Let me give you an example. Today Cuba has increased its purchases of
rice from Vietnam because of the payment restrictions imposed by the
United States. That is $200 million that could be directed towards our
farmers and not to Vietnam. Talk to the folks from Arkansas. Talk to
the folks from Louisiana. Wouldn't it be better if our rice farmers, in
fact, could be the beneficiaries of that market?
Let us end this foolishness of making a restriction on our farmers to
sell their agricultural products to Cuba. Cuba is the only country in
the world on which we put these kinds of restrictions.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires) who serves on our Foreign
Affairs Committee, and this amendment did not go through our committee.
(Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly to respectfully state my
strong opposition to this amendment because I believe that we must not
open our financial institutions to a state sponsor of terrorism like
the Cuban regime.
The Rangel amendment has almost nothing to do with agricultural
interests. In fact, it may actually cause harm to our agricultural
community. What this amendment does do is threaten our national
security. This amendment allows the Cuban Regime, a state sponsor of
terrorism, access to U.S. financial institutions and allows its agents
access to U.S. visas.
If adopted, the Rangel amendment will legitimize the Cuban Regime and
provide them with the opportunity to continue its sponsorship of
terrorism. It will also provide high level regime officials access to
U.S. visas to travel throughout the United States. At a time when our
country has declared a war on terror and we have worked to cut the flow
of money to terrorists and terrorists access to our financial
institutions, we must not open our financial institutions to help
finance state sponsors of terrorism. By adopting this amendment, we
will be doing just that, rewarding the Cuban Regime and supporting the
financing of a state sponsor of terrorism.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, it was interesting that the distinguished
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee pointed out since the time
Dictator Castro has held sway over the Cuban people, the United States
has had Presidents come and go, which seems to point to one ineluctable
fact: the United States, as a free people, can make their Presidents
come and go, which is an option the Cuban people do not have.
As a practical matter, I oppose this amendment for a very simple
reason: it would open up trade with a state sponsor of terrorism, and I
can find no logical way to differentiate one state sponsor of terrorism
from another. It would be akin to simply trying to determine what the
make of the car that ran you over was as opposed to the driver. In
either event, you are probably likely dead, and the rest of the
question is academic.
Secondly, we have heard much in this debate about the benefit that we
may reap in terms of our corporations and farmers, but let us never
forget that the United States must always care more about the cause of
human freedom than about mere money.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to a
member of the Rules Committee, my colleague from Florida, a leader on
human rights, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the agricultural
issue in this amendment is really a subterfuge, because if we read, for
example, the spokesman of U.S. Agribusiness, Mr. Radlow, he states that
in the 5 years that we have been selling products to Cuba, the
political hurdles have never hurt. We know how to deal with third-party
banks.
People use the hurdles as an excuse for not getting a contract. It is
legal to sell agricultural products to the Castro regime since the year
2000. But as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz)
pointed out, ever since 2001 and the attacks of 2001, we have been
making sure that U.S. financial institutions, to the greatest extent we
can achieve it, are protected from state sponsors of terrorism. And as
a matter of fact, the regulation being discussed today was requested by
U.S. financial institutions.
So let's not get confused. This amendment would allow a state sponsor
of terrorism on the list of state sponsors of terrorism U.S. bank
accounts and visas for their agents, over a dozen of which have been
convicted in recent years alone of spying against United States
interests. So let's vote down resoundingly this amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Rangel
amendment and thank the gentleman for offering such a forward thinking
measure.
This amendment will remove the banking restrictions that require
prepayment for agricultural goods, that keep Cuban families from
purchasing food from American family farmers. And frankly it's past
time.
It is past time to leave out-dated cold war era thinking on U.S.-
Cuban relations out where they belong--in the cold.
It is past time to reach out to the Cuban people and allow them to
engage our democratic free markets.
It is past time to restore the rights of the American family farmer's
access to upwards of $300 million dollars in sales to the Cuban market.
It makes no sense to me to allow agricultural exports into Cuba on
one hand an then turn around and set up bureaucratic banking
restrictions that severely limit those very exports on the other.
I commend Chairman Rangel for his leadership on this issue and I hope
to work with him to bring some common sense to Cuba policy.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Boehner
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Boehner:
In section 1204, add at the end the following new
subsection:
(i) Rate Adjustments; Date for Determining Repayment
Rate.--
(1) No more than monthly rate adjustments.--Repayment rates
established under this section shall be adjusted by the
Secretary no more than once every month for all loan
commodities.
[[Page H8756]]
(2) Date for determining repayment rate.--With respect to
the monthly repayment rates established under this section,
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 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.
In section 1205(e), add at the end the following new
sentence: ``However, the producers must have beneficial
interest in the commodity for which a payment is requested
under this section as of the date on which the producers
request the payment.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me first congratulate Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte and the
bipartisan group of members on the Ag Committee who have brought this
bill to the floor.
Unfortunately, the several tax increases contained in the bill I
think are problematic, and we will deal with that later in this
process.
But the amendment that I bring to the floor today aims to fix a
problem that has been identified by the administration and others but
has not been addressed in the bill that we have before us. This bill
would extend a policy that permits farmers to receive loan deficiency
payments based on a daily posted county price, and I think that would
allow a mistake to continue.
If we are going to continue loan deficiency payments, I think we need
to address the situation that allows farmers to lock in an LDP when
prices are low and then to sell that crop when prices are high. LDPs
are a valuable tool for farmers, and in order to preserve this valuable
tool, we need to fix this problem.
Loan deficiency payments enable farmers to receive financing early in
the harvest season, preventing farmers from forfeiting their crops to
the government and allow commodities to be marketed in response to
market demand. As I said, they are a valuable tool, and if we do not
preserve their integrity, I think they are likely to blow up and to be
eliminated entirely.
This amendment would replace the daily posted county price with a
monthly posted county price. The monthly PCP would be the average of
five daily PCPs on preset days during the previous month, taking out
the high price and the low price for that month. Agriculture Secretary
Mike Johanns included this provision in his farm bill recommendations.
The problems with calculating LDPs based on the daily posted county
price were highlighted in the days after Hurricane Katrina. Because of
the hurricane, transport of grain on the Mississippi River was stopped
for several days. This caused a short-term precipitous drop in market
prices which then triggered a number of farmers to go in and trigger
their LDP payments. The farmers who locked in these artificially low
LDPs were simply using the program to increase payments that they
received from the government.
This was not the purpose of the marketing loan program or the LDP
program. Marketing loans and LDPs are intended to allow farmers to
receive financing early in the harvest season to allow commodities to
be marketed in response to demand.
{time} 1000
If we want to increase subsidies for farmers, let's be honest about
it. If we allow the marketing loan program and LDPs to continue to be
used in this manner, we'll be undermining their integrity by allowing
them to game a pricing system that reacts to daily natural disasters.
I think supporting a good farm policy is important, but exploiting
catastrophic natural disasters cannot stand. So I believe we need to
make this change if we're going to preserve LDPs and the integrity of
our good farm policy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Boehner is a good friend
of mine, and I am reluctant to oppose this amendment but I must.
This provision was part of the administration's farm bill proposal.
The benefit of daily posted county prices is that farmers have the
greatest amount of flexibility in responding to market price changes,
which have become, as indicated by Mr. Boehner, increasingly volatile,
and the farmers have very little power in this marketplace. This is
something that I think we clearly should retain for them so that
they've got some ability to deal with what happens in the marketplace.
Moving to a monthly posted county price may save money, but as I
said, it hampers, weakens the effectiveness of the marketing loan
program as a safety net feature, which is one of the primary things
we're trying to do in this farm bill.
According to a letter from the National Grain and Feed Association,
this proposal would be highly disruptive to the efficient operation of
the cash grain marketplace.
The entire General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee,
Republicans and Democrats alike, rejected this approach when it
defeated an amendment containing the administration's proposal that had
this feature in it.
This amendment, this idea has no support in the agricultural
community; and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy,
and I appreciate his leadership.
This is an example of a simple, commonsense reform that needs to be
in a farm bill. Just because it was buried in the overall
administrative proposal and rejected does not mean that it doesn't have
merit. It's not that this just saves money; it avoids an unnecessary
complication and room to game the system.
What Mr. Boehner said is true, there are billions of dollars at play
here. Obviously this may not be supported in the farm country to fix
the loophole because this is an opportunity for them to make
unjustified money.
I strongly urge support with this simple, commonsense reform.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As the gentleman from Oregon said, this is simply a commonsense
amendment. In the days after Katrina, people were able to lock in
artificially low prices and make billions, billions of dollars at the
expense of the taxpayer when they then sold at the higher price. So it
was simply a way to game the system. That's all it was. There's no
other explanation for it.
And to say that the agricultural community rejects it doesn't say
anything about its worthiness as a commonsense reform measure. This
needs to be done. It's common sense. There's no justifiable explanation
to allow people to game the system.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
In the days after Katrina, and just several days after Katrina, when
we had the precipitous drop in prices, it cost the Federal Government
$3.5 billion in extra LDP payments. So what we're talking about here is
sound agricultural policy and sound policy with regard to America's
taxpayers.
Think about the fairness of the farmer who sold his crop the day
before Katrina. Think about what he felt like when several days later
his fellow farmers ended up with hundreds of thousands of dollars more
in extra benefits from the government because they just happened to
sell a day or two before Hurricane Katrina hit.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I think what people need to
[[Page H8757]]
understand, the farmer that sold the day before Katrina got his money
out of the marketplace, and what the LDP did is protect those farmers
that sold later to get the same price that farmer got right before
Katrina. So that's exactly what this is supposed to do.
Farmers don't have any power in this marketplace to speak of. If you
want to give all the power to the big guys, go to this system. It's not
what we want to do in the Ag Committee.
Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, I served for the last 17 years with
Mr. Peterson on the Ag Committee. I'm on leave, and I know all my
colleagues on the Ag Committee are glad that I'm on leave. But the fact
is that marketing loans and loan deficiency payments were there to
facilitate the marketing of a crop. They weren't there to make or set
up a system to allow or to put farmers in a position where they become
day traders, and the current system does, in fact, allow that.
So instead of looking at a daily posted county price, if you looked
at a monthly posted county price where you take out the high for the
month and the low for the month and pick 5 days, you've got a fair
price for all farmers. You've got a fair system that prevents people
from gaming the system because of some abnormality in the market that
may occur on one or two days.
This is a commonsense amendment. I would urge my colleagues to adopt
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be
postponed.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Allen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Schiff, Acting 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.
____________________