[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 80 (Thursday, May 15, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E930]]
 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2419, FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 
                                  2008

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 14, 2008

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Conference 
Committee for its hard work on the Farm Bill, and for all of the 
improvements the final bill makes to existing nutrition, conservation, 
organic farming and other important programs. But I also must express 
my great disappointment that, in this year of record crop prices and 
soaring agricultural profits, we have let a precious opportunity go by 
to implement real reform to the extremely outdated commodity and price 
support programs in the bill.
  The good news today fills a long list. According to the USDA, more 
than 11 percent of U.S. households are food-insecure. Today, we will 
approve more than $10 billion in funding for programs that provide 
American families with low cost, healthy food, including more than $1 
billion for The Emergency Food Assistance Program and more than $1 
billion for the USDA Snack Program. This bill also increases the 
minimum benefit for food stamp recipients and excludes retirement and 
education savings accounts from the assets to be considered in 
determining eligibility. And I am particularly pleased to see that it 
includes $5 million in funding annually for Community Food Projects 
grants, which funding I have previously urged Congress to maintain and 
which I engaged in a colloquy about with the gentlelady from 
Connecticut Ms. DeLauro in connection with the Fiscal Year 2008 
Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
  Similarly, the bill before us today will authorize almost $8 billion 
in conservation funding, including increasing funding for the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program by $3.4 billion, adding more 
than $1 billion in new funding for the Conservation Security Program, 
reestablishing the funding level for the Wetlands Reserve Program at 
$1.4 billion, and doubling funding for the Farm and Ranchland 
Protection Program. And I was especially pleased to see that the House-
passed provision that would have restricted USDA conservation programs 
from encouraging farmers to reduce their use of toxic pesticides in 
implementing integrated pest management programs was removed from the 
final bill, and I would like to thank the two dozen Members who joined 
me in sending a letter to the Conferees to request that the pesticides 
discrimination provision be removed.
  The Farm Bill supports organic farmers by providing $22 million in 
funding for the USDA's organic certification cost share program, which 
defrays the costs that organic producers incur when seeking organic 
certification, provides $5 million in funding for organic marketing 
data, and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make payments of 
up to $20,000 per year, capped at $80,000 over six years, to a producer 
for conservation practices related to organic production or the 
transition to organic production. I have long supported facilitating 
the conversion to organic farming, and was delighted to have the 
support of this chamber when it voted in favor of my amendment to the 
Fiscal Year 2007 Agriculture Appropriations Bill to more than double 
the funding for the Organic Transitions Research program.
  Therefore, although I will be voting in favor of this bill today, for 
all of the good that it will do, I note that there is still a 
substantial amount of good that it should have done, and will not. 
Although the commodity programs in the bill account for less than 13 
percent of the Farm Bill funding, and represent a decrease of $60 
billion compared to the last Farm Bill in 2002, we could have, and 
should have, done better.
   First, although cuts to direct payments totaled $300 million, that 
represents a decrease of less than one percent to the $50 billion 
program. At the same time, subsidies for commodities such as soybeans 
and wheat have actually increased, despite the fact that prices for 
those commodities have also increased--by more than 100 percent and 200 
percent, respectively, since 2002. The House-passed Farm Bill would 
have guaranteed $840 million in funding for the McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program over five 
years, but in the final bill the program was cut to one tenth that 
amount--only $84 million. According to news reports, the amount of 
international food aid provided represents less than 1 percent of the 
Farm Bill's total cost, while at the same time the bill preserves the 
trade-distorting subsidy programs that make it virtually impossible for 
farmers in developing nations to compete.
  And finally, I was troubled to learn that an 11th-hour change was 
inserted into the bill by the Conference Committee, despite it not 
having been debated or voted on in either Chamber, that would negate a 
U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit ruling mandating disclosure of USDA 
data relevant to producer compliance with subsidy programs. In reaching 
its decision, the Court stated that ``there is a special need for 
public scrutiny of agency action that distributes extensive amounts of 
public funds in the form of subsidies and other financial benefits.'' 
No title of the Farm Bill has been more hotly debated than the 
commodity title, the original justifications for which have all but 
evaporated over time, and thus it troubles me that a provision that not 
only goes to the very heart of that matter but also appears to fly 
squarely in the face of a recent court ruling on the subject is being 
put before this body without debate or a specific vote on the merits. 
In fact, I intend to request a hearing on this last-minute language.
  Therefore, this is one of those decisions that is not clear cut. On 
balance, I feel that the good news in the Farm Bill outweighs the bad, 
although not by much. I want to commend my colleague from Wisconsin Mr. 
Kind for his continuing leadership in working to develop a Farm Bill 
that more equitably reflects our modern day needs and economic 
realities, and I want him to know that I look forward to working with 
him and others in the future to address the shortcomings of this bill.

                          ____________________