[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.

                          ____________________