[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 122 (Friday, July 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8757-H8768]
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} 1009
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 earlier
today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 13 printed in
part B of House Report 110-261 by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner)
had been postponed.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Manzullo
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. MANZULLO. 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. 15 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
Strike subsection (a) of section 1246 of the Food Security
Act of 1985, as added by section 2409(a) of the bill, and
insert the following:
``(a) Payments for Conservation Practices.--The total
amount of payments that a person or a legal entity (except a
joint venture or a general partnership) may receive, directly
or indirectly, in any fiscal year shall not exceed--
``(1) $60,000 from any single program under this title
(other than the environmental quality incentives program) or
as agricultural management assistance under section 524(b) of
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 524(b));
``(2) $125,000 from more than one program under this title
(other than the environmental quality incentives program) or
as agricultural management assistance under section 524(b) of
the Federal Crop Insurance Act; or
``(3) $450,000 from the environmental quality incentives
program.
Modification to Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Manzullo
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment with the modification placed at the desk in order to make a
technical correction.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
Strike subsection (a) of section 1246 of the Food Security
Act of 1985, as added by section 2409(a) of the bill, and
insert the following:
``(a) Payments for Conservation Practices.--The total
amount of payments that a person or a legal entity (except a
joint venture or a general partnership) may receive, directly
or indirectly--
``(1) in any fiscal year shall not exceed--
``(A) $60,000 from any single program under this title
(other than the environmental quality incentives program) or
as agricultural management assistance under section 524(b) of
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 524(b)); or
``(B) $125,000 from more than one program under this title
(other thanthe environmental quality incentives program) or
as agricultural management assistance under section 524(b) of
the Federal Crop Insurance Act; and
``(2) for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012,
shall not exceed $450,000 from the environmental quality
incentives program.
Mr. MANZULLO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is accepted.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Peterson) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment that
will exempt the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, from a
$60,000 payment limitation that this bill proposes for conservation
purposes.
This program provides farmers with financial and technical assistance
to plan and implement soil and water conservation practices and has the
full support of the environmental and farming community.
This amendment is more of a technical correction, as all it does is
return the EQIP payment limitation to its current level of $450,000
over the life of the farm bill. The amendment does not
[[Page H8758]]
impact the increased payment limitation for direct payments. The
amendment is narrowly tailored to only impact payments for EQIP-
specific projects.
Currently, 60 percent of EQIP payments go to livestock producers, who
use those cost-share payments to establish environmentally sound
structures and practices on their farms. Without these payments, these
structures and practices in many cases will not meet EPA standards for
environmental care.
The problem with the proposed $60,000 limitation is that these EQIP
programs are so expensive that the farmers, in many cases, probably in
most cases in my district, won't choose to take it because of the cost.
To give you an example, we have two methane digesters in my
congressional district. Each of them cost over a half a million
dollars. The farmer could get up to 50 percent and sometimes even more
of the costs of that from the present EQIP program, but under the
proposed law, he could only get $60,000.
When I was in private practice, I practiced agricultural law and had
to work with farmers to come into compliance with the EPA; and even
though EQIP was not around at that time, the remedial measures that we
took for runoff, et cetera, to be in compliance with EPA in many cases
ran into the several hundred thousand dollars.
This is what I'm hearing from the constituents that I represent, that
they respect the fact that EQIP is there, but $60,000 simply would not
go long enough or far enough.
So our proposal is to return it to its present standard. It spends no
more money. It makes money available to build these expensive
facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Manzullo and I are good
friends, and I allowed him to modify his amendment, but I have to very
strongly oppose this amendment.
We've added several billion dollars to the conservation baseline in
this bill, and even with that, we still have big backlogs in these
programs. It's going to go a long ways to correcting that, but one of
the ways that we're going to make this money go further is by applying
the same payment limitations to these conservation programs that we're
applying to title I.
And the question to me is the same. If the argument is that we have
large farms that shouldn't be entitled to title I payments, then why is
it all right for large folks to be entitled to title II payments?
What this will do, the changes that we've made are going to make this
go further. It's going, I would say, to allow smaller producers a
better opportunity to have access to these limited programs.
And so I guess I would just say what is good for the goose is good
for the gander, that we're applying these same limitations all across
the programs. I understand that some of the larger folks aren't going
to like this; but, you know, this is what we need.
So I hear arguments against this because somehow or another
conservation is different, but with the payment limitations, the effect
of that is to actually weaken the title I safety net for producers.
{time} 1015
So, it is just not right to have a different standard for these
conservation programs. I ask my colleagues to stick with the
committee's position. I strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question of the
gentleman from Minnesota, conservation is different from trying to meet
an EPA mandate. You can do a tremendous amount of conservation programs
for $60,000, but EQIP programs, by their very nature, cost in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's the problem.
The problem that we have here is that the $60,000 limitation goes
into effect. Money may not be available for farmers to be able to meet
environmental standards. So this really is a pro-environmental vote. I
don't really want to talk about geese. I am talking about cattle. But
this all applies to chicken farms and the tremendous runoff that we
have.
By allowing this amendment and removing the $60,000 cap, this will
increase the number of environmentally protected areas in farming
across the country. That's the reason for it. It costs no more money,
and you might want to spread these programs across the board. I can
understand that on conservation, but not on these mandated programs
that are title II.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good
friend, the ranking member from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I join him in
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Illinois' concerns, but
with regard to the conservation programs, we have a finite amount of
money. The commodity programs work under a baseline that assumes market
conditions.
The money rises and falls, and every farmer who meets those
conditions can qualify for them. But with the conservation programs,
there is a finite amount of money. Without the payment limitations,
many farmers will not receive any help whatsoever in complying with
different environmental regulations unless we have these payment
limitations, which allows the payment to be spread across a wider area.
This is a new reform-minded payment limitation. While some may think
it's too stringent, payment limitations need to be applied uniformly
across both title I and title II.
Easement programs such as the wetlands reserve are exempted from this
so we can protect some of the most environmentally sensitive land
through easements. But the committee must be consistent in our views of
all payments to producers, not just commodity payments.
I join the gentleman in reluctantly opposing the gentleman from
Illinois' amendment.
Mr. MANZULLO. The problem is that the EQIP program is already being
doubled in the amount from $1 to $2 billion, where the caps are being
lowered to $60,000. This is not a conservation.
The purpose of this is so that cow manure and pig manure and chicken
manure don't flow into the rivers and the streams. That's the problem
with the Chesapeake. It's the chicken manure that's destroying the
Chesapeake.
When you have the EQIP cap, that means less chicken producers will be
able to afford retention systems in order to comply with EPA. So this
is a pro-environmental vote, and there is plenty of money because the
chairman recognizes the fact that the total amount has been doubled.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
left?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I understand what you are saying, but the
reality is, if the argument is that wealthy farmers should somehow be
limited to title I payments, then from my perspective, if you got
enough money to build a great big huge factory farm or if you got
enough money to go out and buy 5 million acres, I don't know why the
government needs to help if you've got that much money to do that.
What we're doing here is we're seeing that this is spread across
everybody. What it will do is it will make this available to a lot more
people. It will make it available to smaller farmers. Frankly, if you
have big operations, I think you can pick up this cost and make it part
of the cost of doing business.
I understand what you are saying, but I just disagree, given the
amount of money we have.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon,
for the balance of the time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate where my friend from Illinois is coming
from, but the chairman said it right. This would be an indirect subsidy
for some of the largest operations who need it the least, and it would
penalize people who need this assistance. Even though there is a plus-
up under the bill, it
[[Page H8759]]
doesn't go far enough to meet the need for conservation. We will find
that out.
I strongly support what we have heard from the chair and the ranking
member. I do think this is the environmental position, and I urge
rejection of this amendment.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the payment limitations of the farm bill
go from $2 million to $1 million. Under the EQIP programs it goes from
$450,000 down to $60,000. This is not for wealthy farmers. This is not
for factory farms. These are for the little guys that I represented
when I practiced law in Ogle County, Illinois, for 22 years.
If we had a program like this, the money would have gone a long way.
But even with a modest herd of 300 head, it costs several hundred
thousand to build a retention system or a methane digest, if you want
to go into doing that. Our methane digesters in our district, the one
that has 500 dairy cattle, they are able to run a city of 500 people,
of 500 homes; thus, it conserves electricity from the nuclear plant and
also from coal-burning facilities. The problem is getting onto the grid
and getting a reasonable price.
I was a chairman of the Small Business Committee. When I practiced
law, the guys that use this, these are all little guys around me. We
don't have people with thousands and thousands of cattle in northern
Illinois. So I would suggest that for the small business farmer, to
make this program go even further, that we should allow this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Minnesota has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the
gentleman is saying, but there are a lot of folks that disagree with
these payment limits on title I. I, myself, have some concerns about
them.
It just has got to be this way. We are putting a hard cap of $100
million of all payments. We are doing that to conservation, title I.
This is the way it ought to be. This is the way it needs to be. We are
not treating conservation any different. We are treating him as exactly
the same. I am not one that gets into an argument about big or small,
rich and poor. This is just justice for all.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was rejected.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. 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. 11 offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont:
In section 1409(b), insert after paragraph (6) the
following new paragraph (and redesignate subsequent
paragraphs):
(7) evaluating cost of production variables, including cost
of feed and cost of fuel;
In section 1409(c)(3)(D), insert before the period at the
end the following: ``, including the Northeast, Southeast,
Midwest, and Western regions of the country''.
In section 1409(d), strike ``Not later than two years after
the date of the first meeting of the commission,'' and insert
``Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act,''.
point of order
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Isn't the gentleman
out of order in offering this amendment?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the House of
earlier today, the gentleman is permitted to offer the amendment at any
time.
Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Peterson
and Ranking Member Goodlatte for establishing in the bill the Federal
Milk Marketing Order Commission. It's my hope that the commission will
go a long way in fixing many of the problems inherent in the current
system, and it will lead, hopefully, to a more stable price for milk.
The milk marketing orders, like many of the agricultural pricing
programs, almost dates back to the New Deal. The intent is to provide a
lifeline, not a lifestyle, and a safety net, not really a subsidy.
But one of the problems with the system is it does not take
adequately into account the cost of production. In Vermont, in the last
year, in the world of dairy, we had the perfect storm: high grain
prices, high fuel costs, terribly bad weather, and very low milk
prices.
The purpose of this commission is to allow it, this amendment, to
allow the commission to take into account the cost of production.
We must be sure that if dairy farmers, like other members of the
agriculture community, are going to be able to pay their bills, the
cost of production must be reflected in the pricing program.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
yield?
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield, yes.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont
for bringing up this very important issue. As you know, that version of
the farm bill that the House Agriculture Committee reported contains a
request for the study of Federal Milk Marketing Orders.
As we began the farm bill process last year, we traveled around the
country listening to producers, processors and other members of the
dairy industry. What we heard was that the Federal Milk Marketing Order
system was in need of reform, and we have taken steps to address that.
The committee bill establishes a system to review this system and
report its findings to Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture. The
committee hopes and expects that this study will provide information
necessary to develop the changes that modernize and rationalize milk
marketing regulations in this country.
The committee recognizes the concern that this commission could lead
to delay within the Department regarding ongoing efforts to reform the
improvement of the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. We do not wish
this to be the case and have directed the Secretary to address that
concern in the committee substitute.
So, if the gentleman is willing to withdraw his amendment, I would
extend an offer to work with him in conference to make sure that his
concerns on energy and feed costs are incorporated into the commission
study.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and my
cosponsor, my friend, Mr. Arcuri from New York, we accept the gracious
offer of the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, at this time we would move to withdraw our amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. 16 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
In section 1238I of the Food Security Act of 1985, as
amended by section 2110, insert at the end of subsection (b)
the following new sentence: ``Grants may also be made for
purchase of conservation easements or other interests in land
pursuant to a transferable development rights program in
which the entity acquiring the interests sells them for
development in an urban area consistent with local land use
plans, but grant funds may not be used to reduce the cost of
development rights.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment in order
to highlight an important but unfortunately not well understood
farmland preservation tool used by communities across the country.
The United States loses more than 4,000 acres of farmland and open
space to development every day. Since 1945,
[[Page H8760]]
America has lost nearly 20 percent of its farmland. Some of the best
farmland, which is close to our growing cities, is being lost to
development on an ongoing basis.
Sadly, local governments have few tools to protect this farmland.
They can issue regulations, which some feel is burdensome; they can
purchase land; or they can purchase development rights from landowners
to prevent development, which can be very expensive.
Transferrable development rights, called TDRs in the trade, are an
important market-based tool used by States and cities to protect
farmland, property rights, and taxpayer dollars.
Under a TDR program, development rights can be separated from a
parcel of land and sold to a private party, usually a developer. The
developer can then use these rights to develop in an urbanizing region
with a high demand for development that is already served by highways,
water and sewer systems, not taking out scarce farmland.
{time} 1030
This creates a private market for development rights and gives
farmers options. Under this system, the private sector rather than tax
dollars is paying for preservation of the parcel from which rights are
purchased.
Successful TDR programs have been in place throughout the country
since 1980 and have protected tens of thousands of acres of farmland
and open space. They are currently in use in over 170 communities
around the country, including Montgomery and Calvert Counties in
Maryland, Blue Earth County in Minnesota, and Boulder County in
Colorado. My amendment would simply clarify that funding from the Farm
and Ranchland Protection program, which has been very successful in
preserving farmland through the purchase of conservation easements, can
be used for this type of program.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from
Oregon.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOLDEN. I appreciate the gentleman for raising this issue. I
agree that transferrable development programs are an important tool to
protect farmland; however, I have some concerns about the way this
amendment is drafted. If the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, I
would be happy to work with him as this bill moves through the process
to clarify that Farm and Ranchland Preservation Program funds can be
used for this purpose in a way that ensures that the underlying program
is not negatively affected.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with
us on this. The beauty of the Transfer of Development Rights programs
is, when they are working correctly, they don't need government
funding. However, an initial grant is sometimes extraordinarily useful
in getting a program started in the first place. It is why I think
funding from the FRPP is important.
Upon the gentleman's request, I am happy to withdraw this amendment,
as long as we can work to make sure that the intent, and I actually
think this is the intent of the existing legislation, to work with you
to clarify the language to make sure that this innovative program will
help stretch the tax dollars for the Farm and Ranchland Protection
Program even further.
Our Nation's farmers face development pressures every single day, and
we need to ensure that communities are able to use all the tools
available to help the farmers who want to keep farming resist
development pressures.
I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and look forward to working
with him.
Mr. HOLDEN. I assure the gentleman he has my commitment as well as
the commitment of the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. 9 Offered by Mr. Arcuri
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. ARCURI. 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. 9 offered by Mr. Arcuri:
At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following new
section:
SEC. 2410. ADJUSTMENT OF CLASS I MILK PRICE MOVER TO REFLECT
ENERGY AND ANIMAL FEED COST INCREASES.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
Agriculture should use existing authority when determining
the Class I milk price mover to take into account the
increased cost of production, including energy and feed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Arcuri) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I plan to withdraw my amendment, but before
I do I would like to take a few minutes to highlight a few issues
facing dairy farmers in our district.
First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Chairman
Peterson for achieving what many thought was impossible, and that is a
sensible, balanced, comprehensive reauthorization of the farm bill. I
especially appreciate that the chairman included a 5-year extension of
the MILC program, which is so critical to dairy farmers in my district
and throughout the Northeast.
Unfortunately, with skyrocketing costs of energy and feed, it is
becoming increasingly difficult for dairy farmers to stay in business.
New York is third in dairy production nationwide and home to 6,200
dairy farms which produce 12 billion pounds of milk a year and generate
$2 billion in farm revenue.
From 2001 to 2006, however, the cost of gasoline and fuel had
increased over 100 percent. The cost of feed has increased nearly 20
percent and the cost of fertilizer has increased over 40 percent, to
list just a few of the dairy farmers' expenses. While all the costs of
production are based on market prices, the price a dairy farmer can
charge for a hundred weight of fluid milk is not.
In response, my amendment simply states the sense of Congress that
the USDA should use its existing authority when determining the class I
milk price mover to factor in increased costs of production like energy
and feed. It is patently unfair that Exxon, Conoco, Mobile, and other
oil companies can increase the price of their product when costs of
production like exploration and labor go up; yet dairy farmers are held
hostage to severe price fluctuations and forced to succumb to a process
that doesn't always reflect their increased costs in production.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my
good friend and colleague from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), a cosponsor
of my amendment, and a member of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on
Dairy.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my fellow
colleague from upstate New York. I want to echo the sentiments of
Congressman Arcuri.
Upstate New York dairy farming and small dairy farming across the
country is in grave need of consideration. I was very, very grateful
for the leadership of Subcommittee Chairman Boswell, who really
extended an enormous amount of advocacy on behalf of dairy farmers
throughout the country.
I also want to thank Chairman Peterson and the other members of the
Agriculture Committee who really thought through the needs of dairy,
and made sure that MILC was preserved in this farm bill.
But the issues are very serious. Last summer, the price of milk was
$12 a hundred weight, and the cost of producing that milk was between
$16 and $18 a hundred weight. The cost of feed, the costs of fuel have
continued to escalate. This summer, if you go to a gas pump, it is over
$3.50 a gallon; that is the way it was last summer. Now, we are very
thankful because we have high milk prices. But this constant
fluctuation is a problem that we need to address, and I am going to
work with
[[Page H8761]]
Chairman Boswell and Chairman Peterson over the next several years to
look at milk policy, how we can improve the market order system and how
we can improve dairy pricing throughout our country.
I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York for her
leadership on dairy issues and tireless service on the Agricultural
Committee on behalf of New York.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the distinguished subcommittee
chairman, Mr. Boswell, subcommittee chairman of the Dairy Subcommittee,
who has truly done a remarkable job in getting us where we are today,
for as much time as he may consume.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I must recognize Mr. Arcuri and Mrs.
Gillibrand for their great work. The farmers of their State ought to be
very proud that they have spoken out, and we have listened and we want
to make things better.
I want to thank them for this amendment that he has agreed to
withdraw, and to say the following: that the moving renewable industry
and its impact on feed cost has been something that the House
Agriculture Committee has monitored closely. The Subcommittee on
Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry even held a hearing on this issue earlier
this year.
As the United States moves toward energy independence and a stronger
renewable fuel base, the cost of production has increased for our
producers. This issue affects my district especially, since it is one
of the largest and a major ethanol producing area.
We must work together, and we will work together, to find the balance
between feed and fuel, and ensure that one important industry is not
hurt by the other. So I encourage my distinguished colleague to
withdraw his amendment, with the understanding that I will work with
him in conference or wherever to make sure his concern about the cost
of feed and fuel is incorporated in the final version of this bill for
dairy producers.
Mr. ARCURI. I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman as well
as Chairman Peterson for their commitment to address this very critical
issue for dairy farmers in my district during the conference.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in part B of House Report 110-261.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. 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. 19 offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois:
Strike the three sections in subtitle C of title I, and
insert the following new sections:
SEC. 1301. SUGAR PROGRAM.
(a) Forfeiture Penalty.--Section 156(g) of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C.
7272(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Forfeiture penalty.--The Secretary shall assess a
penalty on the forfeiture of sugar pledged as collateral for
a nonrecourse loan under this section. The penalty shall be 1
cent per pound for raw cane sugar and an equivalent amount,
as determined by the Secretary, for refined beet sugar.''.
(b) Effective Period.--Section 156(j) of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C.
7272(j)) is amended by striking ``2007'' and inserting
``2012''.
SEC. 1302. FLEXIBLE MARKETING ALLOTMENTS FOR SUGAR.
Section 359b(a)(1) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(a)(1)) is amended in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ``2007'' and inserting
``2012''.
Strike section 9013.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The Davis-Kirk amendment will strike the new sugar provisions which
will drive up the price of domestic sugar, therefore making it more
difficult to candy makers, food processors, and confectionery
businesses to survive. This new bill raises the sugar price supports,
restricts sugar imports, and instructs the Secretary to buy surplus
sugar for use in making ethanol.
Since 1997, the sugar subsidies have cost the U.S. economy a loss of
70,000 jobs. The Davis-Kirk amendment will make sure that the sugar
program does not cost any more jobs than what we have already lost.
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. The Davis-Kirk amendment to the 2007 farm
bill would erase sugar policy measures that are designed to save
taxpayers funds and prevent the U.S. sugar market from being overrun
with subsidized foreign sugar. The economic impact in Minnesota alone
of the U.S. sugar industry amounts to over $1.3 billion per year.
Nationwide, over $10 billion is generated in economic impact from this
industry.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 27, 2007 On Page H8761 the following appeared: Mr.
MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The
Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes. Mr. MOLLOHAN. The Davis-Kirk amendment
The online version should be corrected to read: 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. The Davis-Kirk amendment
========================= END NOTE =========================
While I sympathize with Members who are experiencing job losses in
their districts, I would urge them to consider why job loss is
happening. It is not because of the price of sugar. Food manufacturers
are paying less for sugar today than they paid when Jimmy Carter was in
the White House.
Now, the Davis-Kirk amendment would eliminate the market balancing
provisions that we put in this bill. And this is really a safety valve
to deal with the possibility of sugar coming in from Mexico, which I am
not convinced is going to happen. So instead of dealing with this in a
forfeiture way, which is the way the current system works, what this
will do is it would allow us to deal with excess sugar that might come
in from Mexico, and it would be done only as needed.
So we are not sure what is going to happen. Right now, the price of
sugar in Mexico is higher than in the United States, and all the
reports I am reading, they don't have any extra sugar in Mexico. So we
are not even sure that this is a problem.
The Department has put this CBO score in there to try to screw us up
with this program. They have been doing this for years. They have been
trying to kill this program off. We have a mechanism here that makes
sense, because we will put the sugar into ethanol, which speeds up the
fermentation process and creates more ethanol in the process, this is
corn ethanol plants, and it just makes sense. It is going to save us
money, and it will make sure that we can maintain this industry.
They also in this amendment have a forfeiture penalty that would add
insult to injury for American sugar farmers, as desperate farmers would
have to pay back to the government 6 percent of their potential
proceeds from the loan after the U.S. market prices have collapsed, if
that ever would happen. So I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Illinois, Representative Biggert.
{time} 1045
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I don't know how it's possible, but this
bill makes a bad sugar program even worse. Chicago was once referred to
as the candy capital of the world because of our strong confectionery
and manufacturing industry, but thanks to the sugar program and sugar
subsidies, nearly one-third of the jobs in the industry have been lost.
This farm bill goes backward, not forward. Instead of recognizing the
reality that the sugar program has cost American manufacturing jobs,
this bill increases sugar price supports and widens the gap between
U.S. and world prices.
I strongly support Mr. Davis and Mr. Kirk's amendment to keep cane
refinery and food manufacturing jobs in the United States. This is a
good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its adoption.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good
friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
[[Page H8762]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
opposition to this amendment.
Consider, the cost of sugar over the past 27 years has actually
decreased, and it remains the only commodity in the country that has
actually contributed toward paying off the national debt.
But as the cost of sugar has gone down, the price at grocery stores
for candy manufacturers and bakery manufacturers and other sweets are
charging more for their products, whose main ingredient is sugar, has
increased.
Footnote right there. Why does the confectionery industry get smaller
and cost more?
I don't need to sugarcoat the facts, Mr. Chairman. American consumers
are getting a sweet deal on sugar. It's so cheap in the U.S., they give
it away in restaurants.
Unlike other commodities, the U.S. sugar program doesn't cost the
American taxpayer one dime.
Do my colleagues realize that if this amendment passes, over 146,000
jobs, 25,000 of which are in South Florida, will be in jeopardy.
Congress can't turn its back on these hardworking Americans simply
because candy companies in the U.S. want to pay their workers pennies
in South America rather than living wages in South Florida.
In my district, the cities of Belle Glade, Clewiston, South Bay and
Pahokee will almost cease to exist if this amendment passes. Talk about
getting a raw deal. As my distinguished colleague Dale Kildee, who
himself represents a significant portion of sugar beet country, is fond
of saying and correctly so, we have the cleanest, greenest, and safest
sugar supply in the world. I implore my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Davis-
Kirk amendment.
The current sugar program has cost American workers tens of thousands
of jobs, and it's cost American families $1.9 billion per year,
according to the GAO. It will cost taxpayers $1.3 billion over the next
10 years, according to CBO. Unfortunately, a provision of this bill
threatens more harm.
While I support this bill overall, we need this amendment, which
prevents an increase in price supports for sugar, if and only if the
Secretary of Agriculture determines that these changes contribute to a
loss of jobs in the food and beverage manufacturing. The least we can
do is ensure that changes in the sugar program do not kill good
American manufacturing jobs. It's done harm in the Chicago area and
across the Nation. We do not want to see more harm done.
I'd like to thank Mr. Davis for his leadership on this issue and
encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, briefly let me just say, this issue of
the candy manufacturers leaving this country has nothing to do with the
price of sugar. The price of sugar has been cheap for over 25 years.
They're leaving because they're getting health benefits for their
people at a cheaper price in Canada and Mexico. The utilities are
cheaper, and the packages that are put together for them by the
international countries across the border to our north and our south
are taking them away. It has nothing to do with the price of sugar.
Sugar is healthy. Sugar is better than the chemicals that people put in
their food that cost a whole lot more. We're worried about energy;
we're worried about food. Let's keep sugar sound in this country.
We're not energy independent. For the first time in the history of
our country, 2 years ago we imported more foodstuff than we exported.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. And when
we had a neutral party look at this issue and the sugar program, it was
the Commerce Department, and we asked the simple question, does this
program cost American jobs? And the Commerce Department said 10,000
American families have lost their income because of the jobs exported
overseas because of this program costing taxpayers over $1 billion a
year and, really, a symbol of 19th and 20th century thinking in a 21st
century economy. So I rise in strong support of this and would like to
return those jobs to the United States of America.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, my district has been devastated by trade
agreements and other policies of past Congresses. The population of my
largest city has dropped from 180,000 to 118,000. Delphi is going
through a bankruptcy. My General Motors jobs have dropped from 80,000
to 18,000.
The one bright spot in my district is agriculture, led by my sugar
beet farmers who own the whole process from the fields through the
refinery. Don't deliver another blow to my district by in effect
abolishing this no-cost program. Let my sugar farmers help the economy
of my district. They are our hope. Don't dash that hope. Defeat this
amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
and his leadership.
Three simple points. First of all, this amendment does not abolish
the sugar program. It just doesn't make it worse.
Second, every independent agency, CBO, GAO, Department of Commerce,
all conclude that this is not a no-cost program to Americans. It costs
them over $1 billion.
Third, in terms of the cost per job saved that my friend from Florida
was concerned about, the Department of Commerce has pegged that at
$826,000 per job. One job in sugar production for three in sugar
manufacturing. It's not a good trade-off.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our
time to my good friend from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) who does an
outstanding job representing his farmers and our sugar producers.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, this is a dispute about facts. I flat out
absolutely reject the fact that this is costing jobs; in fact, American
sugar producers, 146,000 jobs in 19 States, struggling without an
increase in their market price for 22 years.
Now, this amendment would represent a loss in income averaging $294
per acre. I'm telling you, if you're a farmer trying to make those ends
meet and you're taking nearly a $300 hit per acre as a result of this
amendment, you are out of business.
Don't cost us these jobs. Reject this amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment to keep the
subsidies for sugar from increasing in this bill.
The inflation of sugar prices that our misguided sugar policy drives
costs U.S. families a total of almost $2 billion every year. Every time
you buy chocolate or breakfast cereal or any product that contains
sugar, you pay a premium, and these subsidies inflate the price of
sugar for Americans to twice the world price.
The subsidies are driving businesses out of the country. A GAO study
confirms that 42 percent of these subsidies, by the way, go to just 1
percent. So I urge my colleagues to put an end to these harmful
handouts.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. I just want to make the quick point that every commodity,
sugar, corn, soybeans, are reduced on the AGI from $2.5 million down to
1, except sugar. Why is it not reformed like the other crops in terms
of how much a person can make to receive these government payments?
Sugar is not only protected, it's helped through this bill instead of
reformed like the other commodities.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I'll use the balance of our
time.
Mr. Chairman, I have here in my hand a circular from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture that says this amendment, while not the
administration's proposal, provides more flexibility to manage the
program in a way that minimizes costs to the U.S. taxpayer than the
committee's bill.
[[Page H8763]]
In addition, the 1 cent penalty on forfeitures will help discourage
forfeitures of sugar placed under loan. This amendment also eliminates
the increase in the sugar loan rate, helping to reduce cost for
taxpayers.
Let's give our taxpayers a break. Support the Davis-Kirk amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. 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 Illinois
will be postponed.
En Bloc Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 574, I offer
amendments en bloc, including germane modifications. The amendments are
at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Berry). The Clerk will designate the
amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota
consisting of part B amendments numbered 20 and 29 printed in
House Report 110-261:
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Terry
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title IX, add the following new section:
SEC. __. SUPPLEMENTING CORN AS AN ETHANOL FEEDSTOCK.
(a) Research and Development Program.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall establish a program to make grants of not
to exceed $1,000,000 each to no more than 10 universities for
a 3-year program of demonstration of supplementing corn as an
ethanol feedstock with sweet sorghum.
(b) Program Goals.--The goals of the program under this
section shall be to--
(1) enhance agronomic efficiency of the crop on marginal
lands by--
(A) developing best management practices for maintaining
high sorghum yields while using less water and nitrogen than
corn;
(B) identifying and selecting plants with a high sugar
content; and
(C) developing cold-tolerant sweet sorghum varieties to
enable two crops to be grown per season;
(2) enhance ethanol processing potential in the crop by--
(A) developing a robust technology for centralized ethanol
production facilities that pair high-performing sweet sorghum
lines with different yeasts to produce the best process for
converting sweet sorghum juice into ethanol;
(B) conducting process and chemical analyses of sweet
sorghum sap fermentation;
(C) introducing cellulosic hydrolyzing enzymes into sweet
sorghum to promote biomass conversion; and
(D) performing life-cycle analysis of sweet sorghum
ethanol, including analysis of energy yield, efficiency, and
greenhouse gas reduction;
(3) establish a sweet sorghum production system optimized
for the region of the university conducting the research;
(4) improve sweet sorghum lines with higher sugar
production and performance with minimal agricultural inputs;
(5) optimize sugar fermentation using selected yeast
strains;
(6) develop sweet sorghum lines with improved cold
tolerance and cellulosic degradation; and
(7) develop agricultural models for predicting agricultural
performance and ethanol yield under various growing
conditions.
(c) Award Criteria.--The Secretary shall award grants under
this section only to universities that--
(1) have access to multiple lines of sweet sorghum for
research; and
(2) are located in a State where sweet sorghum is
anticipated to grow well on marginal lands.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this
section $10,000,000.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Hall of New York
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following new
section:
SEC. 2303. MUCK SOILS CONSERVATION.
(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall carry out a conservation program under which the
Secretary makes payments to assist owners and operators of
eligible land specified in subsection (b) to conserve and
improve the soil, water, and wildlife resources of such land.
(b) Eligible Land.--To be eligible for inclusion in the
program established under this section, the land must--
(1) be comprised of soil that qualifies as muck, as
determined by the Secretary;
(2) be used for production of an agricultural crop;
(3) have a spring cover crop planted in conjunction with
the primary agricultural crop referred to in paragraph (2);
(4) have a winter crop planted; and
(5) have ditch banks seeded with grass that is maintained
on a year-round basis.
(c) Payment Amounts.--The Secretary may provide payments of
not less than $300, but not more than $500, per acre per year
under the program.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the program
$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
Modification to Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Terry
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 20:
The amendment as modified is as follows:
Page 572, line 15 strike ``transportation'' and insert
``transportation or heating''.
At the end of title IX, add the following new section:
SEC. __. SUPPLEMENTING CORN AS AN ETHANOL FEEDSTOCK.
(a) Research and Development Program.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall establish a program to make grants of not
to exceed $1,000,000 each to no more than 20 universities for
a 3-year program of demonstration of supplementing corn as an
ethanol feedstock with sweet sorghum and switchgrass.
(b) Program Goals.--The goals of the program under this
section shall be to--
(1) enhance agronomic efficiency of the crop on marginal
lands by--
(A) developing best management practices for maintaining
high yields while using less water and nitrogen than corn;
(B) identifying and selecting plants with a high sugar
content; and
(C) developing cold-tolerant sweet sorghum varieties to
enable two crops to be grown per season;
(2) enhance ethanol processing potential in the crop by--
(A) developing a robust technology for centralized ethanol
production facilities that pair high-performing sweet sorghum
lines with different yeasts to produce the best process for
converting sweet sorghum juice into ethanol;
(B) conducting process and chemical analyses of sweet
sorghum sap fermentation;
(C) introducing cellulosic hydrolyzing enzymes into sweet
sorghum to promote biomass conversion; and
(D) performing life-cycle analysis of sweet sorghum
ethanol, including analysis of energy yield, efficiency, and
greenhouse gas reduction;
(3) establish a production system optimized for the region
of the university conducting the research;
(4) improve sweet sorghum lines with higher sugar
production and performance with minimal agricultural inputs;
(5) optimize sugar fermentation using selected yeast
strains;
(6) develop sweet sorghum lines with improved cold
tolerance and cellulosic degradation; and
(7) develop agricultural models for predicting agricultural
performance and ethanol yield under various growing
conditions.
(c) Award Criteria.--The Secretary shall award grants under
this section only to universities that--
(1) have access to multiple lines of sweet sorghum for
research; and
(2) are located in a State where sweet sorghum is
anticipated to grow well on marginal lands.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this
section $20,000,000.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the modifications.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, this amendment includes an
amendment by Mr. Terry, which has a demonstration project on sweet
sorghum, which we think has a lot of potential for ethanol feedstock,
as well as switch grass that was brought to us by Mr. Davis.
It also encourages environmentally responsible practices for actively
farmed muck soil land in New York, which is some of our greatest
farmland.
So I encourage support of the amendment.
At this time I'm very much honored to recognize the Speaker of the
House for 1 minute. And I want to recognize her for her outstanding
leadership helping this committee get to where it's at with this farm
bill.
[[Page H8764]]
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the distinguished
chairman of the Agriculture Committee for yielding, and I want to
congratulate him for this achievement for bringing this important bill
to the floor.
I rise to tell you why I am supporting this legislation. Before I do
though, I want to commend the exceptional leadership of our colleague,
Ron Kind, for his work over the years in helping to move us to a place
where this farm bill, called the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy bill,
looks quite different than the bill would have looked without his
persistent and brilliant advocacy for conservation issues that are
included in the bill. I think that he has moved this Congress and this
legislation to a very important place that signals change and shows a
new direction in our farm policy.
{time} 1100
I support the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act because it begins to
reform farm policy while investing in energy independence, supporting
conservation, strengthening nutrition assistance, and recognizing the
importance of specialty crops. That means fruits and vegetables. It
recognizes the vital role of our farmers and ranchers in providing
food, fiber, and fuel for America and the world.
It was a big effort to bring this legislation to the floor. I
acknowledge the achievements and the great work of the distinguished
chairman. I want to acknowledge Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, the
Chair of the Rules Committee, who had to be available very late and
very early in the morning to make this discussion possible. I want to
commend Chairman Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee and Congressman
Lloyd Doggett for their leadership in helping to pay for this bill
because this bill has all along, in all of its formation, been intended
to be a bipartisan bill, which we had hoped it would be, a bill that
met the needs of the American people and that is paid for. And paid for
it is, indeed.
I strongly support the efforts Chairman Peterson has made in this
bill to ensure that America's family farmers fuel America's energy
independence. Because of this legislation we will be sending America's
energy dollars to the Midwest, not to the Middle East.
The 2007 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act makes an historic $2.4
billion investment in renewable energy, including biofuels and wind
power. It boosts renewable energy investments by 600 percent and
provides loan guarantees for the development of refineries that process
renewable fuels. These efforts will ensure that, again, we send our
energy dollars to the Midwest and across America, not to the Middle
East and across the sea.
Energy independence is a national security issue, it is an
environmental issue, it is an economic issue for our Nation and
America's families. Thanks to this bill, it will also be an economic
opportunity for America's farmers. It will create a rural renaissance
that will reenergize farm country and create new businesses and good-
paying jobs in rural America.
I have seen that firsthand. It has already begun. It is an important
initiative that is supported and endorsed in this legislation.
So, reason number one, why I am supporting this bill, is energy
independence. Not in order of priority but in order of mention.
Next, conservation: the farm bill recognizes that those who work the
land, America's farmers and ranchers, are also stewards of the land.
In the area of conservation, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy bill
improves access to, and funding for, initiatives to take
environmentally sensitive land out of production. It encourages
environmentally friendly practices on working lands. And it will invest
$4.3 billion in new mandatory spending to preserve farm and ranchland,
improve water quality, enhance soil conservation, air quality, and
wildlife habitats on working lands.
Again I commend Congressman Ron Kind for his exceptional work on the
conservation issue over time.
The issue of nutrition, of course, is fundamental to all of the
people of our country. And as a mother, I take special interest in the
nutrition aspects of this bill. I want to commend the committee,
Democrats and Republicans, our chairman; and Congresswoman Rosa
DeLauro, the chairman of the Ag Subcommittee of Appropriations, who
worked very hard to get the most money, made mandatory, and paid for in
this legislation.
In the effort of feeding the people, and many of them in need, the
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy bill invests over $11 billion over 10
years in nutrition initiatives to help low-income families. For the
first time in 30 years, thank you, Mr. Peterson, for the first time in
30 years, the bill increases the minimum food stamp benefit and
increases and indexes to inflation the standard deduction, ensuring
that rising food costs do not erode a family's purchasing power. It
also eliminates the cap on child care costs to help the working poor,
because in order to get the food stamps, you could only spend so much
money on child care. What a self-defeating policy. This bill corrects
that. The food stamp provisions in this bill will prevent benefit cuts
for more than 13 million working Americans over the next 5 years.
That is why the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Catholic
Charities USA, America's Second Harvest, and the Food Research and
Action Center all support the nutrition funding contained in this bill.
In addition to recognizing Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro's exceptional work
in this area, I want to recognize Congressman Jim McGovern for his work
in ensuring that the McGovern-Dole legislation, no relation, just a
coincidence, Jim McGovern is not the McGovern in the McGovern-Dole.
That would be George McGovern and Senator Dole, former Republican
leader of the Senate Dole. Their initiative for the international food
programs, which help American farmers and farmers in other parts of the
world, is a very important way for America to protect our friendship
and our values to the rest of the world. In this legislation, the
McGovern-Dole initiative is mandatory, and it is funded to $890
million, a big increase, and paid for.
As a Californian, I take special interest also that the bill makes a
historic investment in specialty crops, providing $1.7 billion in new
mandatory spending. This investment was made possible by the leadership
of Congressman Dennis Cardoza. And many provisions in his bill, the EAT
Healthy America Act, which is a very important bill for us, EAT Healthy
America Act, were incorporated in this bill that is before us today.
This legislation supports specialty crops, that is, fruits and
vegetables, by increasing market access, encouraging and facilitating
consumption of nutritious agricultural products, funding research
initiatives and increasing opportunities for family farmers in
conservation initiatives.
Specifically, just so you know what falls under this, the bill
invests $365 million for Specialty Crop Block Grants; $350 million to
expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable School Snack Program to all 50
States, and I repeat that, $350 million to expand the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable School Snack Program to all 50 States; $215 million to create
a new dedicated research initiative for specialty crops; $200 million
to create a new initiative for early detection, prevention, and
eradication of emerging pests and disease; $55 million for organic
agriculture.
What is important about all of this is many of these resources will
be invested in the Northeast, in the Middle Atlantic States, in the
Northwest and California, where agriculture is a very important part of
the economy but where not very much attention had been paid in the past
in the farm bills. This is a big change and signals a new direction in
this farm bill.
Specialty crop producers, our fruit and vegetable growers, account
for nearly half of all cash crop receipts in America and are a part of
the farm economy in all 50 States, as I mentioned, especially
important, California, the Northeast, Northwest, and Florida.
I mentioned that I was a Californian. I was also born in Maryland; so
I know the importance of the Chesapeake Bay, and I salute the chairman
for the initiative in here in support of the Chesapeake Bay. I see my
colleague Majority Leader Hoyer nodding his head in agreement. But I
want to acknowledge Chairman Chris Van Hollen, for whom this has been a
priority since he came
[[Page H8765]]
to Congress, and now he has been joined by John Sarbanes in support of
this. And I know it has bipartisan support because Congressman
Gilchrest supports these initiatives as well.
From Monterey Bay across the country to the Chesapeake Bay, this bill
represents a new direction. Let me just say that is why this bill is
supported by the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, a national
coalition of more than 120 specialty crop organizations.
Before I leave that point, I want to talk about food safety. One of
the reasons that many of us are in politics, and I know many moms come
to politics, is for our having a safer, clean environment for our
children. Clean air, clean water, food safety, these are things we
can't do for them, but we depend on public policy to do; and the
initiatives in this legislation for food safety are important. They
will be greatly enhanced by the legislation put forth next week by the
Appropriations subcommittee Chair, Congresswoman DeLauro, in her
appropriations bill. But the bills are very compatible in that respect.
The farm bill also includes key provisions that invest in rural
communities, including economic development initiatives and access to
broadband telecommunications services to bridge the digital divide in
rural, underserved areas. It also addresses health care, emergency, and
first responder needs of rural areas, as well as creating new markets
and rebuilding rural infrastructure.
And it pays special attention to the area of minority outreach and
socially disadvantaged farmers by including an additional $150 million,
all paid for, to provide greater outreach, coordination, and technical
assistance.
Finally, this bill takes a critical step toward reform by eliminating
farm payments to millionaires and closing loopholes that for decades
have allowed some to evade the payment limits. More needs to be done,
but we have gone in the right direction for change and for reform.
As I said before, this legislation is paid for. And that is a very,
very important part of this. It is part of our PAYGO, no-new-deficit
spending. It was a challenge. It has been met. And it has been met in a
way that meets our values.
The Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act will ensure that future farm
bills will never look the same as those of the past. I see one of the
co-Chairs of our Rural Working Group here, very important, who is
putting forth the initiative on energy independence for rural America,
Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. I thank you for your
leadership in that regard. And thanks as well to the efforts of
Chairman Peterson and many others who have made an historic investment
in energy independence and nutrition assistance. This bill's effects
will also be felt far from farm country.
As George Washington said: ``I know of no pursuit in which more real
and important services can be rendered to any country than by improving
its agriculture . . . '' That is as true now and it was then. President
Washington understood, as this bill's authors understand, that
encouraging and investing in American agriculture pays dividends to the
entire Nation. In this legislation we will strengthen America's
agriculture, but we also will do much more. We will help reignite rural
America's economic engine and create good-paying jobs and create good
businesses here at home. We will fuel a Nation's energy needs through
clean, American-made renewable energy. We will be better stewards of
the land and protect our environment. And, by the way, we hope to do
much more in that regard when we go to conference. And we will be a
more caring Nation by better meeting the needs of the most vulnerable.
Those great goals can be achieved with the help of this legislation
and with the strong bipartisan support of the House today.
I just wanted to take a few minutes to tell you why I am supporting
the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act. And, once again, I salute the
distinguished chairman for this achievement.
{time} 1115
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Speaker for coming down to
the floor and discussing the bipartisan nature of the farm bill that
was produced by the House Committee on Agriculture. It was, indeed, a
bipartisan product. There are things in the bill that I don't like,
things in the bill that I do like, things in the bill the chairman does
not like, things in the bill that he does like. But it was a bipartisan
product. But it was written under very difficult circumstances, which
we identified at the outset, because of the fact that there is a $60
billion cut in the baseline for the commodity program, a 58 percent
cut. That meant we needed to have money to accomplish the goals that
the Speaker outlined for reform, some of which I share with the Speaker
for increased payments for conservation, for nutrition, for fruits and
vegetables, for renewable energy. So we went to the Budget Committee in
a bipartisan fashion and pointed out that you couldn't have a $60
billion cut, achieve these new reforms, which all entail new spending,
without having the ability to also have some additional resources.
Well, the Budget Committee ignored that request and instead gave us a
reserved fund. And their budget is papered over with reserve funds; no
money in them, no way for the Agriculture Committee to find new funds
without going outside of the committee.
We were assured inside the committee repeatedly that there would not
be a tax increase. But nonetheless, in the closing hours of this
debate, a tax increase, indeed, was what was put forth outside of this
committee, without hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, without a
markup in the Ways and Means Committee, without any input from this
side of the aisle. And that is what caused the loss of the
bipartisanship coming to the floor, because this is precedent setting.
This is the first of many of these reserve funds that we're going to
have to deal with, and it is readily apparent what the purpose is: to
raise taxes in order to accomplish something that should have been paid
for in a budget that had funds available, 9 percent increase in
appropriations. It should have been made available to us so we could
write a bipartisan farm bill all the way through this House going to
the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer) for 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my distinguished friend, Mr. Etheridge, chairman
of one of our subcommittees on the Ag Committee.
I rise to congratulate Mr. Peterson; indeed, I rise to congratulate
Mr. Goodlatte as well, who did work together. In fact, as late as
Monday, we were together coming back from New York and talked about
this bill. He indicated he thought it was a good bill. He did express
then, quite honestly, he wanted to look at the pay-fors. That was
obviously fair. He has decided that because of them, he cannot support
the bill. I regret that.
I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Congressman Peterson
of Minnesota, for his hard work on this important legislation and his
efforts in crafting a bipartisan reform bill. I think he has a
bipartisan reform bill. I understand the pay-fors may preclude some,
hopefully not all, from voting for this.
I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you were
very good at spending money and not very good at paying for things. You
are consistent to that extent today. You went from a $5.6 trillion
surplus to a $3 trillion deficit because we did not pay for what we
bought. This bill does that.
It is a testament to the hard work of Mr. Peterson and others on the
committee that this farm bill reauthorization passed out of the
Agriculture Committee on a voice vote, that is, with unanimous
bipartisan support.
I also appreciate the work of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind)
who cares deeply and thoughtfully about agriculture and our rural
communities. His effort, with respect to this bill, was a very positive
one. He has made important contributions on this issue, and I
congratulate Mr. Kind, one of the finest Members of this body.
I believe that this farm bill deserves to pass today with strong
bipartisan support. And I note that the ranking member of the
committee, as I have said, even expressed on the House floor
[[Page H8766]]
yesterday, Mr. Goodlatte said he would support this bill were it not
for the inclusion of a pay-for.
About that provision, let us be clear. At literally the 11th hour, as
this farm bill was about to be considered on this floor, the White
House issued a veto threat and amazingly complained that we are
actually trying to pay for this legislation, in part, by closing a
corporate tax loophole. Now, when you close a loophole, does it mean
that somebody is paying taxes that they otherwise would not pay? That's
the definition of a loophole. Not just any corporate tax loophole, mind
you, but a corporate tax loophole that the Bush administration itself
recommended closing in 2002 and which Bill Thomas, the Republican
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, agreed with.
Let me quote Ken Dam, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary, and I quote,
``Opportunities for earning stripping through artificial deductions and
income shifting may exploit the network of tax treaties the United
States maintains around the world.'' That's what we're dealing with.
That's what Assistant Secretary Dam was talking about.
In 2002, the Treasury Department concluded, 2002, Republican Treasury
Department concluded, ``The prevalent use of foreign related-party debt
in inversion transactions is evidence that these rules should be
revisited.'' That is what we're doing.
So we're asking those who make good money in America to pay their
fair share of the taxes in America. I believe the overwhelming majority
of Americans agree with that proposition. Yes, Democrats would make it
harder for overseas companies to use tax havens to avoid taxes on U.S.
profits from hardworking Americans who buy their products and expect
them to pay a fair share, a position formerly held, as I said, by the
Bush administration, and even Bill Thomas.
The provision is not only good tax policy, but also a clear
manifestation of this new Democratic majority's commitment to abide by
the new pay-as-you-go budget rules that will help us restore fiscal
discipline.
Those rules were adopted in a bipartisan fashion in 1990, reiterated
in 1997 in an agreement which I voted for, President Clinton supported,
and it was not until 2002 that those were abandoned by the Republicans
because you could not pay for your tax cuts. That's why you abandoned
PAYGO. And that's why the $3 trillion debt occurred from a $5.6
trillion surplus.
Now, as to the substance of this farm bill, Chairman Peterson has
written a bill that focuses on getting vital benefits to family
farmers, investing in America's producer, stimulating rural economies,
and securing renewable energy sources.
I, too, want to join in congratulating Stephanie Herseth Sandlin on
the role that she has played in terms of the rural focus of this bill.
This bill imposes real payment limitations that will begin to reduce
subsidies, moving in a new and right direction. It makes historic
investments in programs to support food and vegetable producers, an
important element for not only California and the northeast, the middle
Atlantic, but other areas as well.
It improves funding and access to conservation programs. It imposes
payment limits that prevent millionaires from receiving farm subsidy
benefits and makes payments transparent. Could we go lower? We could.
Should we in the future? Yes. But we have made, in my opinion, a very
significant start.
It invests in nutrition programs that help families in need. In the
richest country on the face of the Earth, we ought to make sure that no
child in America goes to sleep at night or wakes up in the morning
hungry. We're trying to move towards that. I see the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca) who has been very involved in these programs as
well.
And it encourages the expansion of renewable fuel production,
providing loan guarantees for the development of refineries that
produce renewable fuels. Energy independence is a critical objective,
and this bill moves us towards that objective.
Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased that this legislation
includes more than $175 million in direct assistance to help our
farmers in their ongoing efforts to be good stewards of the Chesapeake
Bay. We have made some strides to restore this magnificent estuary, but
much more work needs to be done.
I want to thank my friend Tim Holden from Pennsylvania and Nona
Darrell, his chief staffer, who helped work on this effort.
To move us forward in this regard, the bill will implement an
innovative strategy targeting individual river watersheds, including
the Patuxent and the Potomac, to help our producers prevent shoreline
erosion, control sediments, reduce nitrogen loads, and establish a
long-term monitoring program.
Again, my colleagues, I want to congratulate Chairman Peterson on
this bill. I also want to congratulate Mr. Goodlatte. I wish he was
supporting this bill at this point in time, but I know that he worked
to get much of the bill, which but for the pay-fors it's my
understanding he would support. But the pay-fors are critical if
America is going to pay its bills and not simply pass them along to
future generations, whether they be farm children, suburban children,
or rural children.
This bill is a responsible, important step forward in farm policy and
energy policy and nutritional policy and in conservation policy. I
congratulate the members of the committee on their product, and I urge
my colleagues to enthusiastically support this product.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the
distinguished majority leader that I join him in the support of this
bill for the efforts to help preserve and protect the Chesapeake Bay,
but also to correct the assertion that I object to the pay-fors. I
objected all along to a tax increase all through the process. And I
went with the chairman to the Budget Committee at the outset and asked
for a fair portion of the current Federal budget for agriculture, and
that is what we expected to come forward from the budget. We didn't
receive it. So that's what we expected the leadership to provide later
on. It was not provided. Instead, we're asked to pay a tax increase on
American businesses, and that is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to recognize the
distinguished Republican whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt)
for 3 minutes.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time this
morning. I also want to join my good friend, the majority leader, and
say how much I appreciate the work that's been done by Chairman
Peterson, by Mr. Goodlatte, by the members on the committee in a bill
that I had every intention of voting for as it went through the
committee. I didn't like everything in it, but I did like some things
in it a lot. There are some problems solved in this bill.
The big problem is created in the bill in a way that I wouldn't
suggest intentionally, but certainly has the effect of taking a bill
that would have had a huge bipartisan vote, giving this bill great
momentum in the Senate, and I think needlessly minimized the House
support for this bill.
Following up on Mr. Goodlatte's comments that he just made, if the
budget allocation could have been done in a way that the appropriations
bill we voted on yesterday, it would have had a 5 percent increase
instead of a 6\1/2\ percent increase, we wouldn't be having this debate
today. In fact, I would be here today with enthusiasm about the bill,
though again, I would say that I don't like everything in it, but I
like some things in it a lot.
What happened was this bill deserved to have a chance in the
committees to find the right kind of pay-fors. In the committee hearing
itself, and I am quoting my friend, Chairman Peterson, exactly when he
was asked about whether there would be a tax increase, he said, ``We
think it will be something to do with collection of existing taxes,
which has nothing to do with tax increases.'' Quoting the chairman
further, ``So far as I know, there is no effort to use a tax increase
that I am aware of at this point. But given all of that, we do not have
jurisdiction. If we had jurisdiction to raise taxes, we wouldn't be
going through some of these machinations we are going through.'' And
that ends the Chairman's quote.
This bill should have been in a committee to look at this pay-for.
The Ways and Means Committee didn't meet. The Rules Committee didn't
[[Page H8767]]
have the language for the pay-for when they did their markup earlier
this week, according to Louise Slaughter, the chairman of the Rules
Committee.
We've done things here that don't just affect people who are trying
to avoid taxes. What this pay-for does is abrogates our tax treaties
with countries where we do business, and people who do business here.
5.1 million manufacturing jobs and millions of other nonmanufacturing
jobs affected by this, mistrust in whether you can invest money in this
country in the future if you're a foreign investor. Some of our Members
can make a passionate case about many jobs that have been saved in
their districts because a foreign country, a foreign investor who just
happened to make particular sense in what they did, came in and saved
those jobs.
I think it's a shame that we've had to have this debate. I urge that
all Members vote against the bill.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself
30 seconds.
The quote that my good friend read is an accurate quote; at the time,
that's what I thought. But I just want to make clear that in my opinion
what we're doing here is not a tax increase. And frankly, what we ought
to be doing is investigating why we have all these people on the
payroll at the State Department and at the Treasury going out and
negotiating deals so we can have foreign corporations come to the
United States and avoid paying taxes. And all we're doing is trying to
stop that. So I don't see this as a tax increase.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Maine (Mr. Allen).
{time} 1130
Mr. ALLEN. I thank Chairman Peterson for yielding for the purpose of
a colloquy.
I want to congratulate him in the passage of this farm bill. I want
to commend him for significant funding increases, in particular for the
Senior Farmers' Market and Nutrition program, a program that provides
fresh fruits and vegetables to low-income seniors through farmers
markets, roadside stands and community-supported agriculture. When it
is working properly, this program provides health benefits to seniors
and new business opportunities to farmers.
I had submitted an amendment that was not made in order. My amendment
would have made it easier for States to incorporate community-supported
agricultural distribution programs into their Senior Farmers' Market
Nutrition programs. In particular, my amendment would have given States
the flexibility to set the maximum benefit level per senior in a way
best suited to the needs of farmers and seniors in each State.
Our experience in Maine has been that community-supported agriculture
works extremely well for farmers and is an excellent way to reach
seniors who do not live close enough to a farmers market or who are not
mobile enough to get up and go shopping. Indeed, Maine's community-
supported agriculture program has drawn national acclaim since it was
instituted.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask Chairman Peterson if he is willing
to work with me to incorporate these beneficial reforms into the 2007
farm bill.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the uniqueness
of Maine and the gentleman's interest in tailoring this program to the
needs of his State. I assure him I will work with him to try to find an
acceptable solution to this problem, and I look forward to that.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who has worked with us very diligently to
craft a solution or start a solution for the Chesapeake Bay problem. I
appreciate his leadership.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Speaker Pelosi and
Chairman Peterson and all the members of the Agriculture Committee for
the work they have done in crafting this very important bill.
Mr. Chairman, I think we all understand that no bill that comes
before this House is perfect. But this bill represents a very careful
balancing of important national priorities: protecting the family
farmer, strengthening the nutrition program. And I want to thank
subcommittee chairman Joe Baca for those efforts, land conservation,
environmental protection and renewable energy sources, and all done in
a fiscally responsible manner.
I am especially grateful and thankful for the efforts of Chairman
Peterson and subcommittee Chairman Holden for their efforts to protect
the Nation's largest estuary, the Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay comprises six States and the District of Columbia
as part of its watershed. The scientists have told us that the health
of the Chesapeake Bay is in grave danger unless we take action now.
Almost 50 percent of the excessive nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake
Bay comes from the runoff from farm operations. Our farmers want to be
part of the solution to this problem.
This bill provides farmers on the more than 66,000 farms in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed with the tools they need to help protect the
Chesapeake Bay. It represents a historic leap in Federal support for
our efforts to protect this national natural treasure, the Chesapeake
Bay.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank again the members of the committee for
taking this landmark step with respect to Chesapeake Bay protection. It
is a national treasure. It is a bay, of course, in the backyard of our
Nation's Capital. We need to lead by example. I thank the chairman, and
I thank the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the House
Republican Conference chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. I thank my ranking member for the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to lament a real missed opportunity here.
I listened carefully to the Speaker's remarks and agreed with almost
everything she said about this bill. I have enjoyed the leadership of
our ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Cardoza on the other side of the
aisle, and others from States that have a high production level of
fruits and vegetables.
This bill, on a bipartisan basis, recognizes that need, makes
investments that are necessary in research, and on a bipartisan, in
fact, on a unanimous basis came out of committee that way. But a funny
thing happened on the way to House floor, which was that at the last
minute, and not from any committee process that has jurisdiction over
tax law, $10 billion in tax increases were added.
So we are asked to take a bipartisan product that represents an
important step forward in many ways for American agriculture and pay
$10 billion in ransom. The tragedy of that long-term for American
agriculture is that it is pitting 1.5 percent of the population that
affords our Nation the safest, cheapest, most abundant food in the
world, it is pitting those jobs against American manufacturing jobs.
Long-term, the 1.5 percent of the population that represents farm
country will lose that arithmetic.
This is an unprecedented move to use a farm bill as a vehicle to
increase taxes. The taxes that will be due tomorrow that were not due
yesterday are coming out of, in many cases, manufacturers who purchase
the products that American farmers and livestock producers grow. It is
a tax, in many cases, on the farm equipment manufacturers and the
agricultural suppliers.
Are we so lost in the weeds of this that we don't realize that
American farmers are part of a global economy, that they are part of an
international, integrated, highly vertical organization that involves
international companies like Nestle, like Cadbury, like Food Lion that
buy what it is that we grow? Do we think that we are insulated from the
impacts of additional taxes on our customers, our suppliers, our
equipment manufacturers, that we can sustain that blow? That is the
policy problem with this conundrum that we have been handed.
But the long-term political problem is the notion of pitting
manufacturing jobs in America against agricultural jobs in America.
That is not sustainable for American agriculture. That is not good
public policy for the American consumer.
So we have taken a bill that would have sailed out of the House of
Representatives with an overwhelming bipartisan margin and given great
momentum to the lethargic Senate that
[[Page H8768]]
has failed to even have a hearing on the farm bill, we could have put
the House on the farm bill, and now it is veto bait. That is the
tragedy.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin),
another one of our outstanding members of the Agriculture Committee.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding
for the purpose of a colloquy.
Chairman Peterson, as you know, I have introduced legislation with
the support of over 50 colleagues to fund the reduced-price school meal
pilot, authorized in the 2004 Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization
Act through the efforts of the Education and Labor Committee.
My legislation also enjoys support from a broad range of
organizations that feel, like I do, that many low-income children
across the country aren't participating in the school nutrition
programs because they cannot afford the reduced fee. My legislation
would provide the resources needed to test the effectiveness of
harmonizing the WIC income guidelines, which are 185 percent of poverty
guidelines, with the free school lunch guidelines, thereby eliminating
the reduced-price meal category and expanding eligibility for free
school meals.
While this proposal wasn't included in the committee bill due to its
cost and committee jurisdictional concerns, I would welcome the
opportunity to keep working with you and see how we might accomplish
the objective of the legislation.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentlewoman, and I want to
commend her for her leadership on this issue. It is something I am
concerned about. So I agree to work with the gentlewoman to accomplish
the objectives of this legislation.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman very much for his
commitment and support for this initiative. It will obviously be very
helpful going forward.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I am actually going to speak on the amendment that was
offered almost 10 minutes ago. I just want to express my appreciation
to you, Chairman Peterson, for agreeing to this and working with us to
make a good amendment even better by including switch grass and
expanding it.
Certainly there is no doubt that ethanol is going to be a key
ingredient in our recipe for energy independence. We have to do more
research and development into cellulosic ethanol, of which sweet
sorghum, which is pictured here in this graph, and switch grass, are
going to be a key component. We can't do it all with ethanol from corn,
so we need other products to develop the cellulosic, to add on top of
that to be able to become less dependent on foreign oil. So we need to
do the research.
This offers grants to universities that will compete. They have to
show that they are competitive in this type of research to earn a $1
million grant to do this.
Our energy needs require us to speed up this process. Ethanol made
from cellulosic materials, like sweet sorghum or switch grass, has nine
times the amount of energy as regular ethanol. So that is another
reason why we have to add this.
I want to compliment the ranking member and the chairman in putting
together really a pretty good bill. Forty-eight hours ago I was telling
all of our farm groups that I was very proud to support this type of
legislation, especially because of the bioenergy issues in here. But,
unfortunately, those of us that have said we will vote against tax
increases have been put in a very tough position.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the esteemed
Chair of the House Small Business Committee.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Peterson and I agreed that I
would not offer an amendment based on our mutual support for the
amendment's purpose. I want to thank Chairman Peterson for his
leadership on H.R. 2419, and I would like to enter into a short
colloquy with Chairman Peterson.
This farm bill is critical for our economy, good nutrition, our small
businesses, and it does a lot for underserved populations too. Low-
income and minority communities suffer disproportionately from the lack
of fresh fruits and vegetables.
In many neighborhoods of New York and across the country where
farmers markets are scarce, corner stores are the only place residents
shop for their weekly groceries. Unfortunately, due to the limitation
of space and many obstacles, many of these stores cannot offer fresh
produce and other healthy foods.
Farmers markets and other non-conventional fruit retail sites are
essential and play a large role in bringing our communities nutritious
food. But without simple and critical technologies, farmers markets are
unable to serve low-income consumers. That is why I strongly support
expanding wireless electronic benefit transfers. These EBT debit
machines allow food stamp consumers to use their resources for fresher,
healthier foods. Wireless EBTs are especially crucial for low-income
consumers to use.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the
gentlewoman's leadership. I think we can solve this problem with a
letter to USDA. So if the gentlewoman will work with me, we will do
that. I think we can get this resolved. I support you on this.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for doing that.
That is important not only to provide fresh fruit and produce, but also
to fight obesity and other diseases in our country.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
{time} 1145
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman I rise to enter into a short colloquy with
the chairman. First of all, I thank the chairman for producing a
balanced and outstanding bill.
I come to raise an issue of concern to me regarding the food stamp
eligibility for people who seek assistance for drug and alcohol abuse.
This is why I offered an amendment to H.R. 2419, to ensure equal access
to this vital benefit program regardless of whether one participates in
an institutional drug rehabilitation program or supportive housing.
Mr. Chairman, the Food Stamp Program was designed to allow those who
participate in private and public drug and alcohol treatment programs
and individuals who live in supportive housing to receive food stamp
benefits. However, the current language in the law that provides this
benefit has been misinterpreted by various State officials. This
ambiguity has made it difficult for individuals in supportive housing
and rehabilitation programs to access food stamp benefits for which
they are eligible.
I would ask the chairman if you would work with me in conference to
see if we can address this inequity.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on
this issue. We will work with you to help clarify the way States
interpret food stamp eligibility guidelines and hope for a positive
solution.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the en bloc amendment offered
by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
The en bloc amendment was agreed to.
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.
Serrano) having assumed the chair, Mr. Berry, 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.
____________________