[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 103 (Thursday, June 16, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5615-H5632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
           MEAT AND POULTRY SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR ACT OF 2022

  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
1170, I call up the bill (H.R. 7606) to establish the Office of the 
Special Investigator for Competition Matters within the Department of 
Agriculture, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 16, 2022, on page H5615, in the first column, the following 
appeared: Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1170, I call up the bill (H.R. 7606) to establish
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. DAVID SCOTT 
of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1170, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 7606) to establish


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, in lieu 
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Agriculture printed in the bill, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
117-50, modified by the amendment printed in part E of House Report 
117-366, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 7606

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

         (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Lower 
     Food and Fuel Costs Act''.
         (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     Act is as follows:

       Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
       Sec. 2. Secretary defined.

             TITLE I--MEAT AND POULTRY SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR

       Sec. 101. Office of the Special Investigator for 
           Competition Matters.

          TITLE II--ADDITIONAL NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE

       Sec. 201. Additional nutrient management assistance.

  TITLE III--AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEM SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE AND 
                       CRISIS RESPONSE TASK FORCE

       Sec. 301. Agriculture and Food System Supply Chain 
           Resilience and Crisis Response Task Force.

    TITLE IV--BIOFUEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND AGRICULTURE PRODUCT MARKET 
                               EXPANSION

       Sec. 401. Biofuel infrastructure and agriculture product 
           market expansion.

                    TITLE V--YEAR-ROUND FUEL CHOICE

       Sec. 501. Ethanol waiver.

TITLE VI--PRODUCING RESPONSIBLE ENERGY AND CONSERVATION INCENTIVES AND 
                SOLUTIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (PRECISE)

       Sec. 601. Conservation loan and loan guarantee program.
       Sec. 602. Assistance to rural entities.
       Sec. 603. Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
       Sec. 604. Conservation Stewardship Program.
       Sec. 605. Delivery of technical assistance.

                      TITLE VII--BUTCHER BLOCK ACT

       Sec. 701. Assistance for new and expanded livestock or 
           poultry processors.
       Sec. 702. New and expanding livestock or poultry processing 
           grants.

TITLE VIII--LOWER FOOD AND FUEL COSTS SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2022

     SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.

         In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
             TITLE I--MEAT AND POULTRY SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR

     SEC. 101. OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR FOR COMPETITION 
                   MATTERS.

         (a) In General.--The Department of Agriculture 
     Reorganization Act of 1994 is amended by inserting after 
     section 216 (7 U.S.C. 6916) the following:

     ``SEC. 217. OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR FOR 
                   COMPETITION MATTERS.

         ``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Department an office, to be known as the `Office of the 
     Special Investigator for Competition Matters' (referred to in 
     this section as the `Office').
         ``(b) Special Investigator for Competition Matters.--The 
     Office shall be headed by the Special Investigator for 
     Competition Matters (referred to in this section as the 
     `Special Investigator'), who shall be a senior career 
     employee appointed by the Secretary.
         ``(c) Duties.--The Special Investigator shall--
         ``(1) use all available tools, including subpoenas, to 
     investigate and prosecute violations of the Packers and 
     Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) by packers and 
     live poultry dealers with respect to competition and trade 
     practices in the food and agricultural sector;
         ``(2) serve as a Department liaison to, and act in 
     consultation with, the Department of Justice and the Federal 
     Trade Commission with respect to competition and trade 
     practices in the food and agricultural sector;
         ``(3) act in consultation with the Department of Homeland 
     Security with respect to national security and critical 
     infrastructure security in the food and agricultural sector;
         ``(4) maintain a staff of attorneys and other 
     professionals with appropriate expertise; and
         ``(5) in carrying out the requirements of this 
     subsection, coordinate with the Office of the General Counsel 
     and the Packers and Stockyards Division of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Service.
         ``(d) Prosecutorial Authority.--
         ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding title 28, United 
     States Code, the Special Investigator shall have the 
     authority to bring any civil or administrative action 
     authorized under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 
     U.S.C. 181 et seq.) against a packer.
         ``(2) Effect.--Nothing in this section alters the 
     authority of the Secretary to issue a subpoena pursuant to 
     the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
         ``(3) Notification.--With respect to any of the actions 
     brought under this subsection in Federal district court, the 
     Special Investigator shall notify the Attorney General.''.
         (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 7014(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
         ``(11) The authority of the Secretary to carry out 
     section 217.''.
         (c) Technical Amendment.--Subtitle A of the Department of 
     Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 is amended by 
     redesignating the first section 225 (relating to Food Access 
     Liaison) (7 U.S.C. 6925) as section 224A.
TITLE II--CROP NUTRIENT USE AND PRECISION AGRICULTURE PRACTICE ADOPTION 
                               ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 201. CROP NUTRIENT USE AND PRECISION AGRICULTURE 
                   PRACTICE ADOPTION ASSISTANCE.

         (a) Payments.--During the period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this section and ending on September 30, 2023, 
     the Secretary shall make payments under this section to 
     producers----
         (1) to assist in reducing the costs associated with the 
     utilization of crop nutrients; or
         (2) to adopt precision agriculture practices to address 
     the utilization of crop nutrients or water availability.
         (b) Amount.--
         (1) In general.--A payment to a producer under this 
     section shall not exceed 100 percent of the costs of the 
     activity for which the assistance is provided.
         (2) Cost Share.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     producer is receiving other Federal funds for the activity 
     for which the assistance is provided, a payment to the 
     producer under this section shall be in an amount that does 
     not, in combination with such other funds, exceed 100 percent 
     of the costs of such activity.
         (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2022 and 2023.

     SEC. 202. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed as a conservation 
     or environmental program within the meaning of section 5(g) 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 
     714c(g)).
  TITLE III--AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEM SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE AND 
                       CRISIS RESPONSE TASK FORCE

     SEC. 301. AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEM SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE 
                   AND CRISIS RESPONSE TASK FORCE.

         (a) In General.--Subtitle B of title II of the Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6931 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 229. AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEM SUPPLY CHAIN 
                   RESILIENCE AND CRISIS RESPONSE TASK FORCE.

         ``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 
     establish within the

[[Page H5616]]

     Department an Agriculture and Food System Supply Chain 
     Resilience and Crisis Response Task Force (in this section 
     referred to as the `Task Force').
         ``(b) Mission.--The mission of the Task Force shall be 
     to--
         ``(1) help to promote the leadership of the United States 
     with respect to the stability of the agriculture and food 
     system supply chain;
         ``(2) encourage a government-wide approach through 
     partnerships and collaboration with the private sector, labor 
     organizations, the governments of countries that are allies 
     or key international partners of the United States, States or 
     political subdivisions thereof, and Tribal governments in 
     order to--
         ``(A) promote the resilience of the agriculture and food 
     system supply chain; and
         ``(B) identify, prepare for, and respond to shocks to the 
     agriculture and food system supply chain;
         ``(3) monitor the resilience, diversity, security, and 
     strength of the agriculture and food system supply chain;
         ``(4) support the availability of agriculture and food 
     system supply chain goods for domestic manufacturers, 
     domestic producers, and domestic enterprises in the United 
     States and in countries that are allies or key international 
     partners;
         ``(5) assist the Federal Government in preparing for and 
     responding to shocks to the agriculture and food system 
     supply chain;
         ``(6) support the creation of jobs with competitive wages 
     in the United States agriculture and food system sector; and
         ``(7) coordinate executive branch actions necessary to 
     carry out the functions described in paragraphs (1) through 
     (6).
         ``(c) Special Advisor on Supply Chain Resilience and 
     Crisis Response.--The head of the Task Force shall be the 
     Special Advisor on Supply Chain Resilience and Crisis 
     Response (in this section, referred to as the `Special 
     Advisor') who shall be appointed by the Secretary.
         ``(d) Agricultural and Food System Supply Chain 
     Evaluation and Report.--
         ``(1) Evaluation.--The Special Advisor, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of 
     Transportation, shall conduct an evaluation of the stability 
     and reliability of the agriculture and food system supply 
     chain. The evaluation shall focus on the items listed in 
     subsection (b).
         ``(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 270 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the Special 
     Advisor shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture, the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report on the evaluation 
     conducted under subsection (a) that includes the following:
         ``(A) An evaluation of--
         ``(i) the strengths of the agriculture and food system 
     supply chain;
         ``(ii) the weaknesses of the agriculture and food system 
     supply chain;
         ``(iii) current and potential future critical bottlenecks 
     in the agriculture and food system supply chain, including 
     transportation bottlenecks in the distribution of 
     agricultural inputs, processed and unprocessed food and food 
     input products, and consumer-ready food products;
         ``(iv) workforce challenges and opportunities in the 
     agriculture and food system supply chain; and
         ``(v) the overall stability and reliability of the 
     agriculture and food system supply chain.
         ``(B) A discussion of existing Federal legal barriers, if 
     any, that negatively impact the stability and reliability of 
     the agriculture and food system supply chain.
         ``(C) Specific recommendations to improve the security, 
     safety, and resilience of the agriculture and food system 
     supply chain, including recommendations that address 
     challenges identified under paragraph (1) and that also 
     address--
         ``(i) long-term strategies;
         ``(ii) industry best practices;
         ``(iii) risk-mitigation actions to prevent future 
     bottlenecks and vulnerabilities at all levels of the 
     agriculture and food system supply chain; and
         ``(iv) legislative and regulatory actions that would 
     positively impact the security and resilience of the 
     agriculture and food system supply chain.
         ``(e) Termination.--The Task Force shall terminate on the 
     earlier of--
         ``(1) the date on which the report required by subsection 
     (d) is submitted; or
         ``(2) September 30, 2023.''.
         (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 7014(b)), as amended by section 101, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
         ``(12) The authority of the Secretary to establish in the 
     Department the Agriculture and Food System Supply Chain 
     Resilience and Crisis Response Task Force in accordance with 
     section 229.''.
    TITLE IV--BIOFUEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND AGRICULTURE PRODUCT MARKET 
                               EXPANSION

     SEC. 401. BIOFUEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND AGRICULTURE PRODUCT 
                   MARKET EXPANSION.

         (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts otherwise available, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary $200,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2022 and 2023, to remain available until 
     expended, to carry out this section.
         (b) Use of Funds.--The Secretary shall use the amounts 
     made available pursuant to subsection (a) to provide grants, 
     on a competitive basis, to eligible entities described in 
     subsection (c)--
         (1) to install, retrofit, or otherwise upgrade fuel 
     dispensers or pumps and related equipment, storage tank 
     system components, and other infrastructure required at a 
     location to ensure the environmentally safe availability of 
     fuel containing ethanol blends at levels greater than 10 
     percent (as determined by the Secretary) or fuel containing 
     biodiesel blends at levels greater than 5 percent (as 
     determined by the Secretary); and
         (2) to build and retrofit distribution systems for 
     ethanol blends, traditional and pipeline biodiesel terminal 
     operations (including rail lines), and home heating oil 
     distribution centers or equivalent entities--
         (A) to blend biodiesel; and
         (B) to carry ethanol and biodiesel.
         (c) Eligible Entities.--Entities eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section are transportation fueling 
     facilities and distribution facilities, including fueling 
     stations, convenience stores, hypermarket retailer fueling 
     stations, fleet facilities, as well as fuel terminal 
     operations, midstream partners, and heating oil distribution 
     facilities or equivalent entities.
         (d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the total cost 
     of carrying out a project for which a grant is provided under 
     this section shall be not more than 75 percent.
         (e) Limitation.--The Secretary may not limit the amount 
     of funding an eligible entity may receive under this section, 
     except that such funding is subject to the availability of 
     appropriations.
                    TITLE V--YEAR-ROUND FUEL CHOICE

     SEC. 501. ETHANOL WAIVER.

         Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545) is 
     amended--
         (1) in subsection (f)(4)--
         (A) by striking ``(4) The Administrator, upon'' and 
     inserting the following:
         ``(4) Waiver.--
         ``(A) In general.--The Administrator, on''; and
         (B) by adding at the end the following:
         ``(B) Reid vapor pressure.--A fuel or fuel additive that 
     has been granted a waiver under subparagraph (A) prior to 
     January 1, 2017, and meets all the conditions of that waiver 
     other than any limitations of the waiver with respect to Reid 
     Vapor Pressure, may be introduced into commerce if the fuel 
     or fuel additive meets all other applicable Reid Vapor 
     Pressure requirements.''; and
         (2) in subsection (h)--
         (A) in paragraph (4)--
         (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
     inserting ``or more'' after ``10 percent''; and
         (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``additional 
     alcohol or''; and
         (B) in paragraph (5)(A), by inserting ``or more'' after 
     ``10 percent''.
TITLE VI--PRODUCING RESPONSIBLE ENERGY AND CONSERVATION INCENTIVES AND 
                SOLUTIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (PRECISE)

     SEC. 601. CONSERVATION LOAN AND LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

         Section 304 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1924) is amended--
         (1) in subsection (b)(3), by redesignating subparagraphs 
     (F) and (G) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively, and 
     inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
         ``(F) the adoption of precision agriculture practices, 
     and the acquisition of precision agriculture technology;'';
         (2) in subsection (d)--
         (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'';
         (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
         (C) by adding at the end the following:
         ``(4) producers who use the loans to adopt precision 
     agriculture practices or acquire precision agriculture 
     technology, including adoption or acquisition for the purpose 
     of participating in the environmental quality incentives 
     program under subchapter A of chapter 4 of subtitle D of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985.'';
         (3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
         ``(2) 90 percent of the principal amount of the loan in 
     the case of--
         ``(A) a producer that is a qualified socially 
     disadvantaged farmer or rancher or a beginning farmer or 
     rancher; or
         ``(B) loans that are used for the purchase of precision 
     agriculture technology.''; and
         (4) in subsection (f)--
         (A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
         ``(1) Geographic diversity.--The Secretary''; and
         (B) by adding at the end the following:
         ``(2) Coordination with nrcs.--In making or guaranteeing 
     loans under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     there is coordination between the Farm Service Agency and the 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service.''.

     SEC. 602. ASSISTANCE TO RURAL ENTITIES.

         Section 310B(a)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(2)) is amended--
         (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
         (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
         (3) by adding at the end the following:
         ``(E) expanding precision agriculture practices, 
     including by financing equipment and farm-wide broadband 
     connectivity, in order to promote best-practices, reduce 
     costs, and improve the environment.''.

     SEC. 603. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.

         (a) Definitions.--Section 1240A(6)(B)(v) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-

[[Page H5617]]

     1(6)(B)(v)) is amended by inserting ``(including the adoption 
     of precision agriculture practices and the acquisition of 
     precision agriculture technology)'' after ``planning''.
         (b) Payments.--
         (1) Other payments.--Section 1240B(d)(6) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(d)(6)) is amended--
         (A) by striking ``A producer shall'' and inserting the 
     following:
         ``(A) Payments under this subtitle.--A producer shall''; 
     and
         (B) by adding at the end the following:
         ``(B) Conservation loan and loan guarantee program 
     payments.--
         ``(i) In general.--A producer receiving payments for 
     practices on eligible land under the program may also receive 
     a loan or loan guarantee under section 304 of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to cover costs 
     for the same practices on the same land.
         ``(ii) Notice to producer.--The Secretary shall inform a 
     producer participating in the program in writing of the 
     availability of a loan or loan guarantee under section 304 of 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act as it relates 
     to costs of implementing practices under this program.''.
         (2) Increased payments for high-priority practices.--
     Section 1240B(d)(7) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3839aa-2(d)(7)) is amended, in the subsection heading, 
     by inserting ``State-determined'' before ``high-priority''.
         (3) Increased payments for precision agriculture.--
     Section 1240B(d) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa-2(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
         ``(8) Increased payments for precision agriculture.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the Secretary may increase the 
     amount that would otherwise be provided for a practice under 
     this subsection to not more than 90 percent of the costs 
     associated with adopting precision agriculture practices and 
     acquiring precision agriculture technology.''.
         (c) Conservation Incentive Contracts.--Section 
     1240B(j)(2)(A)(i) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa-2(j)(3)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting ``(which may 
     include the adoption of precision agriculture practices and 
     the acquisition of precision agriculture technology)'' after 
     ``incentive practices''.

     SEC. 604. CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.

         (b) Supplemental Payments for Resource-Conserving Crop 
     Rotations and Advanced Grazing Management.--Section 1240L(d) 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-24(d)) is 
     amended--
         (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``and Advanced 
     Grazing Management'' and inserting ``, Advanced Grazing 
     Management, and Precision Agriculture'';
         (2) in paragraph (2)--
         (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; or'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
         (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``; or''; and
         (C) by adding at the end the following:
         ``(C) precision agriculture.''; and
         (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or advanced grazing 
     management'' and inserting ``, advanced grazing management, 
     or precision agriculture''.

     SEC. 605. DELIVERY OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

         Section 1242(f) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3842(f)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
         ``(6) Soil health planning.--The Secretary shall 
     emphasize the use of third-party providers in providing 
     technical assistance for soil health planning, including 
     planning related to the use of cover crops, precision 
     conservation management, comprehensive nutrient management 
     planning, and other innovative plans.''.
                      TITLE VII--BUTCHER BLOCK ACT

     SEC. 701. ASSISTANCE FOR NEW AND EXPANDED LIVESTOCK OR 
                   POULTRY PROCESSORS.

         (a) In General.--The Secretary may make or guarantee a 
     loan for the purpose of--
         (1) increasing capacity of livestock and poultry 
     processing, facilitating economic opportunity for livestock 
     and poultry producers through processing activities, and 
     diversifying processing ownership;
         (2) increasing the customer base or revenue returns of 
     livestock and poultry producers through investment in 
     processing capacity;
         (3) improving, developing, or financing livestock and 
     poultry processing capacity or employment including through 
     the financing of working capital; or
         (4) promoting the interstate trade and local sales of 
     processed livestock and poultry by financing improvements to 
     meet relevant Federal, State, and local regulatory standards.
         (b) Eligibility; General Limitations.--
         (1) Eligible recipient.--An entity shall be eligible for 
     a loan or guarantee under this section if the entity is--
         (A) a public, private, or cooperative organization 
     organized on a for-profit or nonprofit basis;
         (B) an Indian tribe on a Federal or State reservation, or 
     any other federally recognized Indian tribal group; or
         (C) an individual.
         (2) Facility location.--
         (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     a facility constructed, expanded, modified, refurbished, or 
     re-equipped with proceeds from a loan made or guaranteed 
     under this section shall be in a rural area.
         (B) Exception.--A facility constructed, expanded, 
     modified, refurbished, or re-equipped with proceeds from a 
     loan made or guaranteed under this section may be in a non-
     rural area if--
         (i) the primary use of the loan involved is for the 
     facility, and the facility will increase the customer base or 
     revenue returns of livestock and poultry producers that are 
     located within 300 miles of the facility;
         (ii) the loan involved will be used to increase the 
     capacity in livestock and poultry processing in a region; and
         (iii) the principal amount of the loan involved does not 
     exceed $50,000,000.
         (C) Rural area defined.--In this paragraph, the term 
     ``rural area'' has the meaning given the term in section 
     343(a)(13) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)).
         (3) Limitations.--
         (A) Limitation on amount of loan involved.--A loan of 
     more than $50,000,000 may not be made or guaranteed under 
     this section.
         (B) Limitation on eligibility.--A loan may not be made or 
     guaranteed under this section to an entity that is owned in 
     partnership or in whole by--
         (i) a foreign entity; or
         (ii) an entity that currently processes over 5 percent of 
     the daily harvest of any species.
         (c) Special Rules Applicable With Respect to 
     Cooperatives.--
         (1) Limitation on amount of loan involved.--
         (A) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(3), a 
     loan of not more than $100,000,000 may be made or guaranteed 
     for a cooperative organization under this section.
         (B) Conditions applicable if loan involved is for more 
     than $50,000,000.--A loan of more than $50,000,000 may not be 
     made or guaranteed for a cooperative organization under this 
     section unless the loan is used to carry out a project that 
     significantly increases the livestock and poultry processing 
     in a region, where insufficient processing capacity exists, 
     as determined by the Secretary.
         (2) Intangible assets.--
         (A) In general.--In determining whether a cooperative 
     organization is eligible for a loan or guarantee under this 
     section, the Secretary may consider the market value of a 
     properly appraised brand name, patent, or trademark of the 
     cooperative.
         (B) Accounts receivable.--In the sole discretion of the 
     Secretary, if the Secretary determines that the action would 
     not create or otherwise contribute to an unreasonable risk of 
     default or loss to the Federal Government, the Secretary may 
     take accounts receivable as security for the obligations 
     entered into in connection with a loan made or guaranteed 
     under this section, and a borrower may use accounts 
     receivable as collateral to secure such a loan.
         (3) Purchase of cooperative stock.--
         (A) In general.--The Secretary may make or guarantee a 
     loan in accordance with this section to an individual farmer 
     or rancher for the purpose of purchasing capital stock of a 
     farmer or rancher cooperative undertaking an eligible project 
     under this section.
         (B) Processing contracts during initial period.--A 
     cooperative described in subparagraph (A) with respect to 
     which a farmer or rancher receives a guarantee to purchase 
     stock under subparagraph (A) may contract for services to 
     fulfill any eligible purpose under this section, during the 
     5-year period beginning on the date the cooperative commences 
     operations, in order to provide adequate time for the 
     planning and construction of the processing facility of the 
     cooperative.
         (C) Financial information.--A farmer or rancher from whom 
     the Secretary requires financial information as a condition 
     of making or guaranteeing a loan under subparagraph (A) shall 
     provide the information in the manner generally required by 
     commercial agricultural lenders in the geographical area in 
     which the farmer or rancher is located.
         (d) Conditions Applicable With Respect to Using Loan 
     Involved for Refinancing.--A borrower may use 25 percent of a 
     loan made or guaranteed under this section to refinance a 
     loan made for a purpose described in subsection (a) if--
         (1) the borrower is current and performing with respect 
     to the loan to be refinanced;
         (2) the borrower has not defaulted on any payment 
     required to be made with respect to the loan to be 
     refinanced;
         (3) none of the collateral for the loan to be refinanced 
     has been converted; and
         (4) there is adequate security or full collateral for the 
     loan to be refinanced.
         (e) Loan Appraisal.--The Secretary may require that any 
     appraisal made in connection with a loan made or guaranteed 
     under this section be conducted by a specialized appraiser 
     that uses standards that are similar to standards used for 
     similar purposes in the private sector, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
         (f) Preference.--In making or guaranteeing a loan under 
     this section, the Secretary shall give a preference to 
     applicants that have experience in livestock and poultry 
     processing and can quickly scale-up to increase overall 
     processing capacity in the region involved.
         (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts otherwise available, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2023 through 2025.

     SEC. 702. NEW AND EXPANDING LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY PROCESSING 
                   GRANTS.

         (a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to--
         (1) expand, diversify, and increase capacity in livestock 
     or poultry processing activities;
         (2) improve compliance with livestock and poultry 
     processing statutes (including the regulations issued 
     thereunder), such as the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 661) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 454);
         (3) identify and reduce barriers to entry for new 
     livestock and poultry processors; or

[[Page H5618]]

         (4) update, expand, or otherwise improve existing 
     facilities.
         (b) Eligible Grantees.--An entity shall be eligible for a 
     grant under this section if the entity is--
         (1) a governmental entity;
         (2) a public, private, or cooperative organization 
     organized on a for-profit or nonprofit basis; or
         (3) an Indian tribe on a Federal or State reservation or 
     any other federally recognized Indian tribal group.
         (c) Use of Funds.--An entity to which a grant is made 
     under this section may use the grant funds to establish or 
     support new or expanded livestock or poultry processing 
     activity, or other activity which will increase the customer 
     base or revenue returns of livestock and poultry producers, 
     by undertaking a project, that--
         (1) identifies and analyzes business opportunities, 
     including feasibility studies as required for 
     creditworthiness;
         (2) identifies, trains, and provides technical assistance 
     to existing or prospective rural entrepreneurs and managers 
     or processing facilities;
         (3) provides technical assistance to gain compliance with 
     Federal, State, or local regulations;
         (4) conducts regional, community, and local economic 
     development planning and coordination, and leadership 
     development; or
         (5) establishes a center for training, technology, and 
     trade that will provide training to livestock or poultry 
     processing employees.
         (d) Preference.--In awarding grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall give a preference to applicants that have 
     experience in livestock and poultry processing and can 
     quickly scale-up to increase overall processing capacity in 
     the region involved.
         (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts otherwise available, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2023 through 2025.

TITLE VIII--LOWER FOOD AND FUEL COSTS SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2022

          The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes, namely:

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                  Processing, Research, and Marketing

                        office of the secretary

                     (including transfer of funds)

         For an additional amount for ``Office of the Secretary'', 
     $200,000,000, to remain available until expended, to carry 
     out title IV Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act: Provided, That 
     the Secretary may use up to 5 percent of amounts made 
     available under this heading in this title for administrative 
     costs, including salaries and expenses, research, data 
     collection, and other associated costs, for carrying out such 
     title IV: Provided further, That amounts made available for 
     administrative costs pursuant to the preceding proviso may be 
     transferred to ``Rural Development Programs--Rural 
     Development--Salaries and Expenses'' for the purposes 
     specified in such proviso.

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE

         Sec. 801.  In addition to amounts otherwise available, 
     there is appropriated to the Department of Agriculture, 
     $500,000,000, to remain available until expended, to carry 
     out title II, of which up to 5 percent may be used by the 
     Secretary to provide technical assistance under such title II 
     of the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act.
         Sec. 802.  Each amount appropriated or made available by 
     this title is in addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     for the fiscal year involved.
         Sec. 803.  Unless otherwise provided for by this title, 
     the additional amounts appropriated by this title to 
     appropriations accounts shall be available under the 
     authorities and conditions applicable to such appropriations 
     accounts for fiscal year 2022.
         Sec. 804.  Each amount provided by this title is 
     designated by the Congress as being for an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 4001(a)(1) and section 
     4001(b) of S. Con. Res. 14 (117th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2022.
         Sec. 805. (a) Statutory PAYGO Scorecards.--The budgetary 
     effects of this title shall not be entered on either PAYGO 
     scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the 
     Statutory Pay As-You-Go Act of 2010.
         (b) Senate PAYGO Scorecards.--The budgetary effects of 
     this title shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard 
     maintained for purposes of section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71 
     (115th Congress).
         (c) Classification of Budgetary Effects.--Notwithstanding 
     Rule 3 of the Budget Scorekeeping Guidelines set forth in the 
     joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference 
     accompanying Conference Report 105-217 and section 250(c)(7) 
     and (c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, the budgetary effects of this title 
     shall be estimated for purposes of section 251 of such Act 
     and as appropriations for discretionary accounts for purposes 
     of the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations pursuant 
     to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
          This title may be cited as the ``Lower Food and Fuel 
     Costs Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Agriculture or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 16, 2022, on page H5618, in the second column, the 
following appeared: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) each will controll 30 
minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott). Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. David Scott) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Thompson) each will controll 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott). Mr. DAVID SCOTT of 
Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  I rise in strong support of H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs 
Act, and I encourage my colleagues to support this package that is 
comprised of multiple bills that our House Agriculture Committee has 
advanced in a strong, bipartisan manner.
  Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the last 2 years have led to drastic 
fluctuations in prices. Whether you look at the ongoing impacts of the 
COVID-19 pandemic or the global disruptions associated with Putin's war 
in Ukraine, American farmers, American ranchers, and consumers are, 
right now, facing terrible, increasing costs on the farm, at the 
grocery store, and at the gas station.
  Our Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act tackles these price increases head 
on by increasing competition, options at the pump, and by providing 
needed support for America's agriculture sector at every stop of our 
food supply chain.
  Mr. Speaker, our package includes four main pillars.
  One: Ensuring robust competition in the meat and poultry sector.
  Two: Lowering costs at the grocery store by lowering costs for our 
farmers and ranchers.
  Three: By empowering our farmers to help provide fuel choices and 
lower prices at our gas stations.
  Four: Strengthening the food supply chain.
  Going further into each of these pillars, first, this package will 
establish an Office of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters 
in the Agriculture Secretary's office.
  When we held a hearing, Mr. Speaker, it was a very powerful hearing. 
It was the largest viewing audience for a hearing in the history of our 
Agriculture Committee.
  We heard overwhelming evidence that continuing the status quo when it 
comes to enforcement will not provide more desperately needed 
competition and fairness within our meat and poultry industries.
  So we believe earnestly that the USDA and their expertise in 
agriculture issues gives them a strong footing to investigate the 
competitiveness in our meat and poultry sectors and to enforce existing 
laws to ensure a fair playing field for our family farmers, ranchers, 
and consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, we were informed at that hearing that right now, we are 
losing 17,000 ranching farms every year. This has to stop.
  Our bill also includes a bipartisan provision that will support the 
creation and expansion of processing capacity for small- and medium-
sized producers to help alleviate this terrible, threatening 
consolidation just to a handful of four meatpacking companies. This is 
the core of this legislation.
  Our second pillar addresses a key piece in the puzzle of rising 
prices. At the grocery store, there have been record increases in input 
costs for agricultural producers, with fertilizer prices for both 
specialty and row crop producers skyrocketing. This bill will help 
reduce their input costs so planning decisions are not impacted.
  Mr. Speaker, speaking of fertilizer costs, it is very important for 
the Nation to know that right now, Russia produces and controls 66 
percent of the fertilizer in the world. This needs to have serious, 
serious attention.
  Our second pillar of this legislative package is the puzzle of rising 
prices.
  Our third pillar addresses fuel costs, which is something that 
impacts everyone, whether you are paying more at the gas pump or seeing 
increasing prices in the grocery store from higher trucking and 
transportation costs.
  This package addresses these concerns in a way that empowers our 
farmers and provides more choice and lower prices for our consumers at 
the gas pump and at the grocery store.
  Mr. Speaker, our biofuels adoption and investment helps reduce our 
reliance on foreign oil and the supply shocks facing our gasoline 
supply, while also bolstering a revenue stream

[[Page H5619]]

for our farmers and producers across the country.
  Bolstering our use of ethanol from E10 to E15 will not impact the 
environment, our Environmental Protection Agency confirms this, nor 
will it slow down the rollout of electric vehicles.
  This vital package of bills makes much-needed improvements in our 
supply chain. A series of shocks to our beef supply chain, combined 
with a concentrated processing infrastructure, resulted in high prices 
for meat at our grocery stores and lower prices for our producers, 
farmers, and ranchers.
  Specifically, one provision calls for the formation of an 
Agricultural and Food System Supply Chain Resilience and Crisis 
Response Task Force to examine our food supply chain and report back to 
us here in Congress on the strengths and the weaknesses that exist.
  I am extremely proud of the work of our House Agriculture Committee 
members, both Democrats and Republicans, who have worked tirelessly to 
put this strong bipartisan bill together.
  We have garnered for this bill extremely important bipartisan 
participation. This is what our Nation is hungry for; Democrats and 
Republicans working together to bring down these high costs for our 
food and our fuel. This bill is a bill that our American people want 
and deserve.
       Mr. Speaker, I note that several of the sections in this 
     bill codify or are complementary to ongoing and planned 
     programs that the Department of Agriculture is carrying out 
     or planning to carry out with existing authorities and 
     funding. The intent behind passage of this bill is to be 
     additive to those efforts and is in no way intended to limit 
     or pause those programs and efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7606 because, simply 
put, this bill does nothing in the immediate future to lower food and 
fuel costs.
  Long before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, America's farm families and 
consumers were struggling with fractured supply chains, skyrocketing 
input costs, and historic levels of inflation, each of which continue 
to contribute to increased food prices and diminished inventories.
  Despite these crises, Democrats have neglected to take serious action 
to incentivize increased American production. In fact, we are here 
today to debate a bill that compounds the situation, further limiting 
American farmers' abilities to meet global food demand and doubling 
down on the idea that more spending and big government will feed the 
world.
  Adding insult to injury, the White House has been quick to blame the 
private sector and alleged industry concentration for the current 
crisis.
  Economists across the spectrum--including former Obama and Clinton 
administration officials--have dismissed the strategy as misleading, at 
best, or otherwise, blatantly political.
  So it is not surprising that at the behest of the White House, we are 
debating a package where the anchor piece of legislation perpetuates a 
tired narrative of blame, duplicates existing authorities, ignores 
industry and producers, and undermines the Department of Justice.
  It is also not surprising the party of defund the police also has 
become the party of more cops for cows. At every turn, this 
administration has obsessively pointed the finger at the packing 
industry, in particular, blaming them almost singlehandedly for rising 
food costs.
  They have done so via blog posts, contrived public events, and press 
briefings, all without any acknowledgment of the culpability of their 
own reckless spending and heavy-handed regulatory agenda.
  My Democratic colleagues have dutifully played along, executing 
sensationalized hearings and political theatrics designed to support 
unvetted and controversial bills.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder many of us question the seriousness of 
the bill before us today. If this were a serious exercise, my 
Democratic colleagues would not have paired such an egregious example 
of legislative overreach with several other very thoughtful, very 
bipartisan bills.
  If this were a serious exercise, my Democrat colleagues would not 
have added two unvetted Democrat amendments that are more about 
political point-scoring than genuine near-term policy solutions.
  If this were a serious exercise, my Democrat colleagues would have 
worked with Republicans to form a concrete, immediate policy solution 
with a chance of consideration in the Senate.
  Now, I know both parties understand the gravity of these issues. 
While we may have disagreements on policy, I was confident that we 
could find common-ground solutions, if given the opportunity.

                              {time}  0930

  I am dumbfounded as to why Democratic leadership would choose this 
moment--when consumers are deciding between gas in their cars or food 
on their tables--as an attempt to score political points, especially on 
the heels of a nearly 9 percent increase in consumer prices, the worst 
this Nation has seen since the Carter administration.
  So, Republicans forged ahead, and we developed solutions. Earlier 
this week, Leader McCarthy and I, along with nearly 100 of our 
Republican colleagues, sent a letter to President Biden outlining 
administrative actions that he could take immediately to mitigate 
rising input costs, and strengthen the role that American agriculture 
plays in global food stability.
  And yesterday, I, along with many of those same Members, introduced 
H.R. 8069, the Reducing Farm Input Costs and Barriers to Domestic 
Production Act. This bill would reverse many of the more harmful 
regulatory burdens spearheaded by this administration, address 
escalating input costs, and provide certainty to farmers, ranchers, 
agribusinesses, and other entities across the food and agriculture 
supply chain.
  Specifically, the bill provides relief from EPA's unprecedented 
actions related to pesticides and other vital crop protection tools; 
offers clarity related to WOTUS regulations; rescinds the SEC's harmful 
proposed rule on climate-related disclosures; reinstates the 2020 NEPA 
streamlining; and requires an economic analysis on the costs and the 
benefits of GIPSA rules. These are all actions which would provide 
immediate relief to our farm families and households across the globe, 
and they all were rejected by the Rules Committee majority as 
amendments to the bill before us.
  The letter and this bill stand in stark contrast to what we have seen 
from the White House and the Democrats in Congress and their efforts to 
scapegoat private industry for skyrocketing gas prices and sustained 
supply chain failures.
  So, in short, the crises we are facing cannot and will not be 
mitigated with unfunded mandates, duplicative authorities, politicized 
agencies, and Big Government, all of which are laced into H.R. 7606.
  I remain opposed to this bill and the process which got us here but 
stand willing to work with my colleagues on commonsense, near-term 
solutions to provide immediate relief to farmers, ranchers, foresters, 
and American consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 7606.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier), my good friend.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to 
speak on this important bill, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act.
  American families are struggling. They are continuing to see rising 
gas prices even as oil and gas companies are making record profits.
  Higher prices at the grocery store are making it harder to put food 
on the table, and a lot of this is because farmers are struggling with 
increasing fuel prices. Costs and availability of transportation to 
both domestic and export markets continue to be a challenge for the 
wheat, cherry, apple, and pear growers in my district.

[[Page H5620]]

  This is a global problem, but it is a problem that we can take steps 
to ease right here at home. This bill provides the resources to do just 
that.
  It addresses the cost of fuel by allowing year-round sales of higher 
ethanol blends, which are consistently less expensive than higher 
octane gas.
  It addresses high food prices by helping farmers and helping our 
supply chain.
  Fertilizer costs are at record highs since most of our fertilizer is 
typically sourced from Russia. This bill helps farmers spend less on 
inputs without lowering crop yields.
  We are paying skyrocketing prices for meat at the grocery store, but 
farmers and ranchers don't see any of that additional profit because 
four companies control 80 percent of U.S. meat processing. That is 
unfair.
  This bill expands the availability and capacity of meat processing 
and will create new jobs, provide more options for small- and medium-
sized ranching operations, and help lower the cost of meat at the 
grocery store.
  Finally, addressing the cost of trucking and transportation will help 
farmers get their crops to market.
  The whole goal here is to make life a little easier for the people we 
represent, to help you fill up your tank and feed your family. As the 
only member on the House Agriculture Committee from the Northwest, I 
will continue to do all that I can to support farmers and lower costs 
for American families.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the former chairman 
of the full House Agriculture Committee, who continues to this day to 
be an incredible advocate for agriculture and a mentor of mine as I 
have worked my way into this leadership role.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7606 because 
American farmers and ranchers deserve real assistance, real relief, 
real policy solutions.
  To understand my opposition, you must understand the part of the 
country that I represent and was raised in. The Third District of 
Oklahoma was the epicenter of the drought, the Dust Bowl, and the 
economic depression of the 1930s. This was a time when horrible weather 
conditions collided with misguided Federal ag and misguided Federal 
monetary policy to create an environment that profoundly changed the 
region that my family has called home for over 120 years.
  I was raised on these stories, and it was their experiences that 
shaped my view on what the role of the Federal Government should be. 
The Federal Government should be passing and enacting policies that 
help people and businesses, not hinder them. Unfortunately, the Biden 
administration and House Democrats seem to not hold that same view.
  During the past 5 years, American farmers and ranchers have weathered 
volatile world markets, devastating natural disasters, prolonged 
droughts, supply chain disruptions, ever-increasing input costs, and 
soaring inflation.
  Yet, the only thing the Biden administration and House Democrats seem 
interested in doing is increasing regulatory burdens, limiting access 
to fuel, and passing spending packages that fuel inflation.
  Mr. Speaker, if House Democrats were truly interested in providing 
relief for American farmers and ranchers, they would join my Republican 
colleagues and me in calling for the Biden administration to reinstate 
the Trump-era Waters of the United States rule and rescind the Biden 
administration's WOTUS rule.
  If Democrats were interested in reducing the cost of farm inputs like 
fertilizer and fuel, they would work with us to restore and expand 
domestic energy production. They would join us in calling for the Biden 
administration to rescind the SEC's proposed rule on climate-related 
disclosure.
  This rule is not only a ploy to divert capital away from traditional 
energy investments, it also requires farmers, regardless of size, to 
track and report environmental data to public companies with which they 
work.
  Finally, House Democrats are touting this bill as a solution to the 
issue of consolidation in the meatpacking industry. As we all know, 
DOJ--yes, the Department of Justice--is in the middle of an ongoing 
investigation into the meatpacking industry, an investigation that was 
launched under the Trump administration.
  I feel strongly that if there is collusion, manipulation, or other 
wrongdoing by packers, then the existing law should be enforced under 
the existing authorities at USDA and DOJ. There are civil and criminal 
penalties if violations are found. Changing those authorities or laws 
in the middle of an ongoing investigation only helps to confuse and 
complicate the eventual DOJ findings.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this messaging bill and 
join with me in calling for real solutions for American farmers and 
ranchers.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lower Food 
and Fuel Costs Act.
  Across the country, workers are calling out sick because of COVID, 
truck deliveries and other shipments are facing delays, and people are 
panic-buying, all leading to product shortages and soaring prices.
  Yet, while we know the COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly challenged 
our Nation's supply chain, we also know there are systemic imbalances 
in our economy. Decreased competition, driven by market concentration, 
has allowed companies to further drive up costs and their profits at 
the expense of hardworking Americans in one of our most vulnerable 
moments.
  In the beef-processing market, for example, four dominant companies 
control 85 percent of the market. The four largest poultry processing 
companies made up more than half of the market in 2015, up from 35 
percent of the market in 1986.
  We have seen this trend all across our economy, as large corporations 
have squeezed out independent businesses, eliminating competition. As a 
result, hardworking Americans throughout this country are paying more 
as food prices skyrocket, particularly for meat.
  Provisions included in the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act will help us 
tackle this very issue and help bring prices down across the board.
  The Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act and the Butcher Block 
Act, for example, will help strengthen our investigatory and 
enforcement tools to address market competition issues while also 
investing in additional meat processing capacity.
  The PRECISE Act will improve farming efficiency and help ensure 
farmers' resiliency to future disruptions in fertilizer supply.
  The Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Investment and Market Expansion Act 
and the Year-Round Fuel Choice Act will help drive down prices at the 
pump for Americans and increase available fuel supply.
  These are just a few of the provisions in this comprehensive package 
that will help ease the economic burden on American families and help 
create an economy that works for all of us.
  I urge my colleagues to come together to help hardworking Americans 
by driving down these costs and supporting this legislation.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should see an extension, a little bigger of 
that poster that we saw there. That concentration occurred because of 
exactly what we are seeing today of government and Democrats leveling 
regulations. It was regulations that caused the concentration within 
the meatpacking industry. What happened when you put on more 
regulations, small- and medium-sized processors weren't able to 
continue to work. They couldn't cope with the compliance costs. They 
just couldn't handle those increased regulations.
  Today, we are seeing not just additional regulations, but a whole new 
police officer being created under the poison pill within this 
legislation, special investigator bill.
  I would argue that maybe we ought to blow that chart up a little more 
so we can see and project just how much more concentration occurs when 
we force more small- and medium-sized processors out of the business. 
It will result in increased concentration with this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Mann), a

[[Page H5621]]

great member of the Agriculture Committee who represents the Big First 
Congressional District.

  Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 
7606.
  I support our country's farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers 
because they are the lifeblood of America. They keep us food and fuel 
secure and therefore free and self-determining as a Nation.
  I cosponsor the Year-Round Fuel Choice Act, which would address 
limitations on Reid vapor pressure and allow for producers to supply, 
and consumers to purchase, E15 year-round. I have supported this 
measure long before my time in Congress, and I will continue to be a 
strong proponent of year-round E15. A temporary waiver is not enough. 
We must make this decision permanent and provide certainty to 
producers. That bill is now part of H.R. 7606.
  I cosponsor the Butcher Block Act, which would codify the authority 
for the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants and loans to expand 
meat and poultry processing capacity. I support consumer choice. That 
bill is now part of H.R. 7606.
  In the House Agriculture Committee, I voted in favor of four other 
bills that are now part of H.R. 7606, but today's vote is disappointing 
because House Democrats ignored an effort made by Mr. Davis and others, 
one I am proud to cosponsor, to include an amendment separating these 
good pro-agriculture bills from a poison pill. Included in H.R. 7606 is 
a provision that would create a politically charged special 
investigator office at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
investigate and prosecute food producers in America.
  You heard that right. The original H.R. 7606 and a provision in 
today's so-called Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act would create a new 
office at USDA to investigate and prosecute the people who work to feed 
us. I represent the Big First District of Kansas, which ranks number 
one in the country for the value of sales of cattle and calves at more 
than $9 billion annually. We see the entire beef supply chain in the 
Big First, from cow-calf producers to cattle feeders and packers. Under 
the Packers and Stockyards Division at USDA, all of those players, all 
of them, are already subject to strict inspection. Under H.R. 7606, 
they would be subject to a type of politically charged scrutiny we 
expect of no other related business.
  Do you think that a Democratic-controlled Congress and USDA would 
stop there? No. H.R. 7606 would set the horrible precedent for 
political administrations to inspect and prosecute anything and anyone 
they disagree with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, today it is packing facilities, tomorrow it is 
cornfields and biofuel facilities, or wheat growers and milling 
stations. I support farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers in 
this country, and I am disappointed this poison pill is included.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I want to clear up something that the gentleman just said. It is very 
important. The United States Department of Agriculture is the proper 
source to deal with this investigation. It needs to be investigated per 
the will of the American people, and there is no agency better 
equipped, better qualified, to find out what is going wrong.
  According to the USDA, the language is clear on the special 
investigator being a career employee. It only specifies that the 
position be appointed by the Secretary and based on the qualifications 
of the individual.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. 
Craig), a member of the House Committee on Agriculture.
  Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country are justifiably 
frustrated by the higher prices they are experiencing at the pump, in 
the grocery store, and across the board.
  Right now, working families in every district across this country are 
crying out for relief. They are tired of political games, and they are 
tired of partisan attacks. Our constituents don't want Congress in a 
food fight. They want compromise, and they want solutions.
  My friends, today, we have a bipartisan, commonsense solution at our 
fingertips.
  The Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act will lift up our constituents by 
lowering prices at the grocery store aisle and at the pump and creating 
a situation where we are seen as acting together.
  My provision, the Year-Round Fuel Choice Act, will allow for the 
year-round sale of homegrown biofuels, which can sell for as much as 40 
cents less per gallon than traditional gasoline. Why would we deny that 
low-cost alternative to working families who are so desperate for 
savings?
  My Strengthening the Agriculture and Food Supply Chain Act will help 
lower prices at the grocery store by getting products from ships to 
shelves faster and shoring up our food supply chain for future 
generations. My friends, why would we deny these critical savings to 
our constituents who are simply trying to put food on the table?
  The American people want action. They are calling for us to use every 
tool at our disposal to fight inflation and lower costs. We must 
respond to their call.
  I appreciate the support of this package from my Democratic 
colleagues and many of my Republican colleagues, and I encourage all of 
you to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  During the recent packer hearing, Chairman Scott mentioned that he 
used a chart compiled of what really was cherry-picked data with zero 
context to accuse all four of the major beef packing CEOs of price-
fixing and collusion.
  The packing executives explained the multitudes of supply and demand 
dynamics supporting the data, including the cyclical ebbs and flows of 
cattle production. Each of them denied the chairman's accusation under 
oath.
  Despite their denial, this week at the Rules Committee, the chairman 
accused the packers of lying under oath. According to the chairman, a 
price-fixing scheme is the only plausible explanation for increased 
meat prices. It is no wonder I have serious doubts about this 
administration's ability to objectively carry out these new 
authorities.
  I agree with the chairman, who is a dear friend. We work well 
together on well over 99 percent of everything that we engage on, just 
not this particular poison pill today. USDA is the right place to be 
the cop on the beat for this. In fact, they already are.
  USDA already has an entire Packers and Stockyards Division charged 
with enforcing the Packers and Stockyard Act that has been in place 
since the 1930s. Based on the latest available data, they have filed 
and closed almost 1,900 cases just in 2020 alone. The division already 
consists of a team of seasoned attorneys, market specialists, and 
auditors, and it has the option to pursue administrative enforcement 
through USDA's Office of General Counsel before an administrative law 
judge or through the Department of Justice in Federal court.
  I agree the USDA is the place for oversight of the packing industry, 
and it is already in place. This duplicative mandate with all the 
issues it brings is not warranted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Crawford), the vice ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people need to 
understand two things. One, if you eat, you are involved in 
agriculture. And, two, food security is national security. So, we keep 
those things in mind as we have this conversation today. Everyone in 
this room is involved in agriculture.
  Despite that, we have before us today a bill that makes it more 
difficult for our farmers and ranchers to carry out their primary 
mission, which is to feed, clothe, and shelter 98 percent of the 
population that is not engaged in agriculture. Two percent of Americans 
provide for 100 percent of Americans and the rest of the world. This 
bill doesn't truly address the challenges that they face every day.
  Democrats would rather demonize producers in the private sector 
instead of taking responsibility for the inflation that is changing the 
lives of our

[[Page H5622]]

constituents every day everywhere in the country. Every day, our world 
becomes more globalized and our economies become more interconnected. 
As a result, the need for food security grows.
  One day, Russia is weaponizing food in Ukraine, and the next day, 
China is buying pieces of the American agriculture supply chain.
  I have said it before and will say it again: Agriculture security is 
national security, and we can no longer afford to stand by while our 
adversaries exploit the supply chain and American food security 
flounders under continued inflation inflicted by this administration.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7606. For those of us who 
represent rural constituents, this should be the easiest ``no'' vote 
you ever make.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Let me clarify something the ranking member said. Yes, I was able to 
bring in all four CEOs of our meatpacking companies, and we were very 
grateful that they accepted our invitation. But our ranking member made 
a mistake. It wasn't all four that said in answer to my question about 
whether or not they agreed or had any agreement on pricing in our meat 
industry. Three said no; one said, ``Not to my knowledge.''
  Now, you must understand what we are dealing with here and why just 
that reply from them requires an investigation. That is what we are 
here for. That is why we did the hearing, to bring those parties in.
  We must act, Mr. Speaker. As I said before, we cannot continue to 
lose 17,000 ranchers and farmers. Also, so many of them, thousands of 
them, have not made a profit in 5 years. We have a problem.
  In a report, the GAO noted that the USDA's investigations were 
planned and conducted primarily by economists, without the formal 
involvement of attorneys from USDA's Office of General Counsel, or the 
OGC. As a result, a legal perspective that focused on assessing 
potential violations was generally absent when investigations were 
initiated and conducted. This is precisely why the special investigator 
bill is so important, because it alleviates an issue that has not had 
enough scrutiny and ensures that attorneys will be responsible for 
looking into possible violations.
  The GAO also found that the USDA's Packers and Stockyards Act, PSA, 
investigations had not modernized to keep up with today's complex, 
competition-related concerns, with consolidation at the heart of this 
issue, nor had it implemented previous recommendations. It also 
recommended that GIPSA and USDA's Office of General Counsel work more 
closely together.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker from New Jersey, I thank Chairman Scott for 
the time and all he has been doing with his committee to put this 
excellent bill together.
  Today, once again, in my opinion, the House is taking action to fight 
high gas prices and protect consumers by empowering farmers to provide 
homegrown fuel choices at the pump, an option that costs consumers 40 
cents less per gallon.
  At a time when Americans are paying record-high prices for gas, Big 
Oil continues to exploit market instability caused by Russia's invasion 
of Ukraine to rake in record profits.
  Big Oil companies collectively made $41 billion in profits during the 
first quarter of this year. Some of these were record highs; others 
were the highest profits in over a decade.
  It is abundantly clear that Big Oil companies are more interested in 
funneling billions in profits to their shareholders and executives than 
in addressing record-high gas prices for American consumers.
  The House has to act, Mr. Speaker, to protect American families from 
this profiteering. That is why we are here today, to preserve and 
expand the availability of a cheaper and cleaner fuel option for the 
driving public.
  The Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act combats fuel prices by allowing for 
the voluntary, year-round sale of gasoline containing 15 percent 
ethanol, known as E15 or Unleaded 88. Blending more biofuels like 
ethanol into gasoline displaces demand for petroleum, helping to bring 
down gas prices for consumers.
  Today, drivers are paying, on average, about 40 cents less per gallon 
to fill up their tanks with E15. This fuel provides significant savings 
for families during the summer driving season. Let's ensure it 
continues to be available at gas stations across the country.
  Increasing the availability of E15 protects Americans from volatile 
global oil markets and eases the grip Big Oil has on American drivers.
  By relying more on homegrown biofuels and less on fossil fuels, this 
legislation insulates American drivers from dramatic global price 
fluctuations, enhances our national security, creates local jobs, and 
bolsters true energy independence. It is a win-win across the board. It 
is one of the most powerful tools in our fight against global price 
shocks and oil and gas profiteering.
  E15 is also a cleaner fuel option that emits less carbon pollution 
and burns cleaner than regular gasoline. Today's vote is also part of 
our broader effort to bring down prices while cutting climate 
pollution.
  I thank Representatives Craig and Axne for their leadership on 
preserving and expanding access to E15 across the country and Chairman 
Scott, once again, for including these critical E15 provisions in this 
package.
  Mr. Speaker, let's help bring down gas prices at the pump, strengthen 
our Nation's rural communities, and break the grip of Big Oil by 
passing the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act today.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), a member of the Committee 
on Agriculture.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate this morning reminds 
me of something President Ronald Reagan once said. He said: Our friends 
on the other side of the aisle, they know so much that just isn't so.
  How interesting it is that the title of this package is the exact 
opposite of what this legislation is going to do. It will do nothing to 
bring down the cost of food and energy. Instead, it is making excuses 
for the crises caused by the Biden administration's attacks on American 
agriculture and energy.
  Now, there are a few good pieces of bipartisan legislation in this 
package, but our friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to allow 
these bills to receive their individual votes. Instead, they are using 
the good provisions here as pawns in their political messaging.

                              {time}  1000

  One of the really harmful bills in this package, as has been 
discussed, the Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act, creates a 
duplicative office within the USDA that will only add to the regulatory 
burden of our food processors across the country, and that is going to 
increase costs.
  The investigator would be granted independent litigation authority, 
allowing for civil suits against packers at the whim of the Secretary 
without even consulting with the DOJ. It should be noted, the DOJ 
already launched an investigation into the ``Big Four'' for 
anticompetitive practices in May of 2020 and has declined to provide 
Congress with an update even 2 years into that investigation.
  The bottom line is increasing regulation will raise food prices, not 
make them more affordable. Our farm families need inputs at a fair 
price. They need diesel prices to come down. They need to be able to 
produce the food to feed this country and the world without the 
government making it harder and harder day in and day out. That is why 
this package must be defeated.
  Rather than more regulation, we must unleash the full ability of 
American production. We must work for our farm families and do what is 
right and defeat this bill.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger), who is also the chair of 
our Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of my 
legislation, H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act.
  Congress cannot shy away from addressing the urgent economic 
challenges that face our local communities

[[Page H5623]]

and our entire country, and that challenge continues to be inflation. 
We know how rising prices, consolidation across industries, and supply 
chain challenges are impacting America's families, businesses, and 
seniors, and as lawmakers, our job is to listen to the people we 
represent and then respond with legislation that can help solve those 
problems.
  Indeed, this package, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act, is just 
that. It is a compilation of bills put together by lawmakers who are 
responding to their constituents. I have heard from the other side of 
the aisle that, in fact, it would have been nice if we came together in 
a bipartisan way. So I would note that my colleagues on the Republican 
side of the aisle from Iowa, Arkansas, New York, Nebraska, Ohio, 
Illinois, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, 
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Illinois, Iowa, Tennessee--it 
feels like I am practicing State capitals with my fifth grader--
Nebraska, Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Illinois, 
Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, 
Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, South 
Dakota, Iowa, Iowa, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, 
Nebraska, Florida, Wyoming, Virginia, Minnesota, each of these are 
individual Members of Congress from the Republican side of the aisle 
who are leading on this issue.
  In fact, two of the bills in this package are led by our Republican 
colleagues, and I am proud that I have joined with Congressman Dusty 
Johnson in support of the bipartisan Butcher Block Act. I am proud to 
be his co-lead as he leads that important piece of legislation. It is a 
commonsense step toward allowing American processors the ability to 
expand their operations, launch a new business or just make sure they 
are keeping--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, this is the first step towards lowering 
meat prices, but in addition to increasing processing capacity for 
American cattlemen and poultry producers, we need to go after 
anticompetitive practices in the meat industry.
  That is why I am proud that this package also includes the bipartisan 
Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act. The bill would establish a 
special investigator at USDA to investigate violations of our existing 
antitrust laws that have been on the books for more than 100 years, and 
I thank Congresswoman Miller-Meeks for co-leading this effort.
  This bill has broad bipartisan support and bicameral support. So I 
thank Senator Jon Tester, Senator Grassley, Republican; Senator John 
Thune, Republican; Senator Hoeven, Republican; and Senator Rounds, 
Republican, for joining with us in pushing this bill forward. It has 
support from the U.S. Cattlemen's Association, and this bill is 
responsive to the needs of the people I represent because the Virginia 
Cattlemen's Association supports this bill, as does the National 
Farmers Union.
  Americans want lower meat prices both now and in the future. They 
want lower gas prices and to make biofuels accessible to more 
Americans. We have the opportunity to do that. I urge my colleagues to 
support this package.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this bill.
  To suggest that this bill is a collaborative effort is simply 
inaccurate. There could be a number of other ways to describe that as 
well, but it is unfortunate that we are at a place where we could have 
had an opportunity to advance some good legislation.
  I am a supporter of the E15 bill. I have done a lot of work on this, 
and not just because gas prices are high right now, but because I think 
that E15 and allowing consumers more choices at the pump would actually 
engage consumers as it relates to energy policy and energy products.
  I do have serious concerns, though, as others have mentioned, about 
provisions that the Democrats insisted be included in this bill, like 
the new, very duplicative investigative authority at USDA.
  Even more concerning to me is Democrats' continued strategy of 
seeking to blame others for the situation on energy and the cost of 
virtually everything in our economy rather than acknowledging that 
President Biden's economic policies have actually created this mess.

  Biden stimulus dollars have driven inflation. Biden's stimulus 
dollars paid Americans not to return to work, therefore, worsening our 
supply chain crisis. The President's executive orders canceling new 
lease options and shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline have certainly 
contributed to increased gas prices.
  Real inflation relief legislation would actually reign in spending, 
get more Americans back to work, provide broad regulatory relief, and 
increase domestic energy production. This bill is certainly not it.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished Speaker of 
the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I 
commend him and the members of the committee, as we just heard from 
Congresswoman Spanberger, for their very important work recognizing the 
needs of America's working families with their kitchen table issues, 
recognizing the needs in rural America for us to have legislation that 
strengthens rural America's hand in the decisions that we make as we go 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, as we gather here, the war continues in Ukraine. It is 
an unprovoked, outrageous act of aggression on the part of Putin and 
Russia invading the territorial borders of Ukraine.
  At the same time, doing that has driven up prices here at home, 
driven up prices at the pump; it is a Putin price at the pump. That is 
the main reason, in the short period of time following the invasion of 
Ukraine, the price at the pump went up its highest amount in a very 
long time.
  Russia is also a source of fertilizer, a big source of fertilizer to 
our country, and of course, diminishing the supply coming in raises the 
cost of fertilizer and contributes to the cost for our farmers, and of 
course, then contributes to the price of food at the grocery store. It 
is an important kitchen table issue.
  Putin's price at the pump is exacerbating the skyrocketing costs 
weighing heavily on our families. Again, since Russia began its saber-
rattling against Ukraine, gas prices in many places went up $2 per 
gallon.
  Meanwhile, the World Bank reports that global food prices in March 
and April spiked 16 percent over the 2 months prior, and while Putin 
works to fuel inflation today, the Democratic House--hopefully, in a 
bipartisan way--takes a strong step to bring down crucial kitchen table 
costs at the pump and grocery store and across the board.
  Our Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act does precisely what the name 
suggests in three major areas.
  First, the bill brings down the costs for farmers in the field. As we 
know, oil, gasoline is an important factor of production for farmers in 
order for them to produce. The war in Ukraine has restricted the supply 
of fertilizer, as I mentioned, and sent the costs through the roof. By 
taking action to lower the costs on the farm, we lower the costs on the 
shelf in the grocery store and on the kitchen table.
  Second, this bill bolsters competition in the meatpacking industry, 
and I thank Mr. Scott for his leadership. Cracking down on the market 
power of big conglomerates and increasing competition will ensure 
ranchers get a fair deal for their livestock while families get a good 
price for meat and poultry.
  Third, this bill will help make cheaper, cleaner homegrown biofuels 
more widely available. This summer drivers who choose to fill up with 
Unleaded 88 could save an average of 40 cents a gallon, and by making 
this fuel more widely available it will unleash the power of America's 
farmers to help break the grip of foreign autocrats on energy markets; 
lower gas prices, while keeping our dollars here at home; and reduce 
pollution because biofuels are cleaner than petroleum.

[[Page H5624]]

  Today's action to lower food and fuel costs is the latest 
manifestation of House Democrats' unyielding commitment to fight 
inflation.
  Last month, our majority voted to hold Big Oil accountable for price 
gouging and war profiteering, which has kept energy prices excessively 
high.
  This week, we passed legislation to crack down on exorbitant ocean 
shipping fees, leveling the playing field for American businesses and 
lowering costs for American consumers. Proudly today, President Biden 
will sign this legislation into law. It is called the Ocean Shipping 
Reform Act of 2022.
  As we speak, the Congress is hard at work on a bold, bipartisan, 
bicameral competitiveness package to make more goods in America; 
strengthen our supply chains; diversify our STEM workforce; and 
reinvigorate research and development. We look forward to sending this 
strong cost-cutting legislation to the President's desk.

  Here is the thing: Inflation springs from higher costs. Higher costs 
spring from shorter supply. Shorter supply is there because of COVID 
preventing certain products from coming into our country, so short 
supply. Short supply of factors of production coming into our country.
  That is why the COMPETES Act is so important because it will make us 
more independent, more self-sufficient on the products we need; for 
example, chips. Chips are a very important part of that bill. To make a 
car it takes 1,000 chips; an electric car, 2,000 chips. But we can't do 
that manufacturing unless we have chips, and if other countries are 
saving chips for themselves at home or the high fees of transporting 
them make it just unaffordable to people, we need to make these chips 
at home, and that is what the COMPETES Act enables us to do.
  So lowering costs for our families; when we ran in 2018--just to 
bring back promises made--we said we were going to lower costs by 
lowering the costs of prescription drugs, and that is what we are in 
the midst of doing now. We are going to lower costs in every way for 
America's working families. That is what this legislation does here.
  We are going to have bigger paychecks. And we have had, since 
President Biden took office, working with the private sector and the 
nonprofit sector and the public sector, 8 million jobs have been 
created. Unemployment has been cut in half. Wages have gone up. That 
also contributes to inflation, which must be addressed, and this 
legislation is part of doing that.
  So this legislation is a strong step in that direction, and I salute 
the relentless leadership of the Agriculture chair,   David Scott, and 
the Energy and Commerce chair, Frank Pallone, who is an important part 
of this, as well as Representatives Spanberger, Craig, Axne, and Harder 
and the dedicated staff of both committees.
  Together, they have assembled a package of popular bipartisan 
legislation with a laser focus on fighting inflation.

                              {time}  1015

  Make no mistake, a vote against this bill is a vote to keep the cost 
of gas and groceries high, when we can do just the opposite by voting 
for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), a strong agriculture advocate and 
a leader in agriculture.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear: just because 
Democrats named their bill the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act does not 
mean this bill will achieve that goal.
  The only thing it really achieves is a campaign talking point for 
Democrats responding to constituents frustrated with higher prices at 
the grocery store and the gas station caused by their reckless 
spending.
  Instead of wasting our valuable time debating this bill that will 
never become law, we should pass H.R. 8069, the Reducing Farm Input 
Costs and Barriers to Production Act, introduced by Ranking Member 
Thompson, which includes real, immediate solutions our farmers, 
ranchers, and producers support.
  His bill, which I am proud to support, would reverse the EPA's 
reckless actions related to crop production tools, reverse the Biden 
administration's confusing and disastrous changes to the Waters of the 
United States rule, and would withdraw the SEC's ludicrous ESG rule on 
climate-related disclosures, an action that has received bipartisan 
support.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, civilians and soldiers are dying in 
Ukraine and the American people are feeling it in their pocket, even as 
they rise up to support democracy. The American people know there is a 
problem.
  As we stand on the floor today, the good news is that Democrats care. 
That is why we rise today to offer the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act 
because the American people see it. They see it at the gas station on 
their way home or to work, they see it at the grocery store when their 
carts are half empty, and they see it with their hard-earned paychecks 
that don't meet what they need. Inflation--they know about it.
  You know what, they are looking for a fighting team like the 
Democrats to make something happen, not a whining, complaining, get-
nothing-done. In my community, the interest rates are 8.5 percent of 
the cost of goods in Houston, Texas. I am not going home and telling 
them that we are out here working. I ask for our colleagues to 
recognize the importance of lowering costs at the grocery store, 
ensuring robust competition, and helping farmers. Let us fight to pass 
this bill. We care.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel 
Costs Act, that would shore up the food and agriculture supply chain, 
assure fair competition in the meat and poultry sectors, and lower food 
and gasoline costs to the American consumer.
  The American people know that there is a problem.
  They see it.
  They see it at the gas station on their way home from work.
  They see it when they leave the grocery store with a half empty cart.
  They see it when their hard-earned paychecks stretch less and less.
  Inflation rose by 8.6 percent in May, a 40-year high.
  The price of all goods in the Houston metro area have jumped by 8.5 
percent since April 2021--the highest year-over-year jump since 1981.
  My constituents aren't suddenly making 8.5 percent more than they did 
a year ago, mind you.
  No, they are now going without.
  The cost of the most basic commodities--electricity, oil, meats, and 
dairy--have gone up at alarming rates, and our people are 
disproportionately bearing the burden of inflation.
  An income that previously fed and housed a family, provided life-
supporting medication, and got people to work and back is now capable 
of paying only half of those bills.
  Our constituents are forced to choose between picking up a 
prescription or paying for childcare, between keeping the lights on and 
keeping the pantry full.
  These are not choices American families should have to make.
  Congress must act to rebalance the financial scales in this country.
  This package includes the following bills:
  H.R. 7606--``Meat and Poultry Special Investigators Act'' which 
Establishes an Office of the Special Investigator for Competition 
Matters in the Agriculture Secretary's Office.
  H.R. 7764--``To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
additional payments under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
for implementation of nutrient management practices'' which would 
provide additional assistance to specialty and row crop producers who 
undertake USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service practice 
standards to use fertilizers more efficiently, do soil testing, or seek 
out other sources of plant nutrients.
  H.R. 2518--``PRECISE Act--Producing Responsible Energy and 
Conservation Incentives and Solutions for the Environment'' which 
explicitly states precision agriculture eligibility in Environmental 
Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program, 
allows a producer who receives payments under EQIP to also receive a 
conservation loan guarantee, and allows up to a 90 percent cost share 
for precision agriculture under EQIP.
  H.R. 1542--``Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Investment and Market 
Expansion Act of 2021'' which would deploy additional storage and 
dispensing equipment to ensure that higher ethanol blends and other 
biofuels are more readily available across the country.
  H.R. 4410--``Year-Round Fuel Choice Act of 2021'' which would build 
on a recent Biden Administration action allowing voluntary year-

[[Page H5625]]

round sale of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol, know as E-15 or 
Unleaded 88.
  H.R. 7675--``Strengthening the Agriculture and Food Supply Chain 
Act'' which would create an Agricultural and Food System Supply Chain 
Resilience and Crisis Response Task Force at USDA, headed by a Special 
Advisor on Supply Chain Resilience and Crisis Response.
  H.R. 4140--``Butcher Block Act'' which would provide assistance to 
create new and expand current local and regional livestock and meat 
processing capacity with direct or guaranteed loans.
  From the soil in which our farmers plant their seeds, to the fuel 
that transports vegetables to our grocers, to the very meat on our 
tables, this package will enact positive legislation that the American 
people will be able to see.
  The spike in food and energy prices are at the center of inflation.
  Beginning at the root, as producers across the country face 
skyrocketing fertilizer prices, we must help producers reduce their 
input costs so planting decisions are not impacted.
  Expanding access to precision agriculture technology is critical now, 
as we face climate change and fertilizer costs that have doubled or 
almost tripled.
  Breakdowns and bottlenecks in the food and agriculture supply chain, 
resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, have been well documented and 
have caused significant losses and concerns to our agricultural 
constituents.
  Over the last few decades, there has been an influx of domination in 
the meat packing industry by four large companies resulting in raised 
prices and reduced options for products.
  COVID-19 highlighted the country's dangerous reliance on large beef 
plants run by the four biggest processors.
  The pandemic caused slaughterhouses nationwide to close to contain 
outbreaks of the virus among workers.
  Ranchers were and still are frustrated that cattle prices drop when 
major plants close, while meat companies still benefit from rising meat 
prices.
  Farmers' share of profits have gone down, while American consumers 
continue to pay more, with meat prices being the single largest 
contributor to the rising cost of food people consume at home.
  A fair and competitive market is fundamental to a well-functioning 
U.S. economy.
  When firms have to compete for customers, it leads to lower prices, 
higher quality goods and services, greater variety, and more 
innovation.
  Strengthening enforcement of the Packer and Stockyards Act will lead 
to greater competition in the meat and poultry processing, fairer 
access to markets for producers, and more price stability for 
consumers.
  Increased processing capacity will alleviate some supply chain 
bottlenecks and provide producers with more options to market their 
cattle and receive a fair price.
  The supply chain will be more resilient and competitive long term as 
a result.
  With regard to our energy and fuel crisis, further use of biofuels 
will reduce prices at the pump for all Americans and increase the 
supply of fuel available.
  Biofuels adoption and investment helps reduce our reliance on foreign 
oil and the supply shocks facing our gasoline supply while also 
bolstering a revenue stream for farmers across the country.
  E-10 gasoline, gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol, is currently 
sold year-round, while the sale of E-15 gasoline, gasoline containing 
15 percent ethanol, is dependent on receiving special waivers despite 
both having very similar emission profiles when it comes to smog 
formation.
  Year-round sale of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol (E-15) will 
reduce the price at the pump for American drivers by giving consumers 
the choice to purchase a fuel that is substantially cheaper than 
standard gasoline.
  The American people need legislative intervention in a market that is 
increasingly becoming more concentrated and suffering from supply chain 
disruptions.
  This package provides small concrete actions that will invoke change 
and provide both short-term immediate and long-term continuous relief.
  I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and 
Fuel Cost Act.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a 
serious issue facing all of rural America: the Biden administration and 
the radical left's war on agriculture.
  Today, the House will vote on H.R. 7606, which will exacerbate 
fractured supply chains, skyrocketing input costs, and historic levels 
of inflation, all of which are hammering American consumers.
  This bill is the latest attempt to scapegoat private industry rather 
than address the real needs and concerns of farmers, ranchers, and 
rural Americans. We know the Biden administration and my colleagues 
across the aisle see Americans in the oil and gas industry as the 
enemy, and I truly believe they now see farmers and ranchers as the 
enemy, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I want my constituents back home in Texas to know that 
this is something I am fighting for every day. I represent the number 
one ag district in the State of Texas, and farmers and ranchers in my 
district are experiencing out-of-control input costs for fertilizer, 
fuel, and basic parts for equipment. I can assure you the legislation 
we are voting on today will make that worse.
  A spending and regulatory agenda that compounds the situation further 
limits American ag industry's ability to meet global food demands is 
not the answer.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Harder), a member of the House 
Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. HARDER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today frustrated, and 
to be honest, just plain tired.
  For months now, my community has been paying over $6 a gallon for gas 
and $5 for a jug of milk. Prices are out of control, and it is crushing 
us. I talked to a neighbor the other day and she told me she is going 
to have to choose between picking her kids up from school and driving 
herself to work, if gas prices stay this high.
  Families in my neighborhood don't have the luxury of sitting around 
while politicians do nothing. Today, we have a chance to actually help 
by passing our Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act.
  This package includes my bill, which provides funding for farmers to 
implement nutrient management programs. These programs will help lower 
the cost of growing food for our farmers, so prices go back to normal 
at the grocery store.
  Helping farmers lower costs while cutting gas prices for our families 
is common sense. It is beyond time that Congress put politics aside and 
actually listen to what our communities need. This isn't rocket 
science. They are asking for the government to do its job and bring 
these prices back down to Earth.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope common sense prevails today, and let's pass this 
bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a great member of the Agriculture 
Committee.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I stand here in disbelief at how Washington 
is trying to run this economy. That is the reason I ran for office 
because things were so bad, and it was impossible to grow your 
business.
  I am reminded of what we actually did when we had the House, and the 
Congress, and the White House. We passed the Constitutional Review Act. 
Through that act, we got no help from the other side, and then we 
passed some tax reform to give people more money to invest in their 
businesses.
  Let me tell you what happened. For the first time in my life we 
became energy independent. For the first time we became an energy 
power. We had more jobs than people looking for jobs. So what happened 
now? Joe Biden was the Vice-President when I was elected. He is now the 
President. All those executive orders he signed stopped everything we 
did to put this country on the right track.
  Mr. Speaker, I am tired of this. I demand immediately that we stop 
this war on American energy that is driving up costs and stop 
overregulating our ag producers.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure 
to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my 
friend, the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the chairman has done a wonderful job as the 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and I know that you are working 
together to bring people together. One of the things that I most admire 
about Chairman Scott is that he wants to have a bipartisan result 
coming out of his committee, and I think in this bill he has.
  Mr. Speaker, every day Americans across the country must contend with

[[Page H5626]]

the rising prices caused by inflation. Whenever they pull up to the gas 
pump, they face the repercussions of Vladimir Putin's criminal invasion 
of Ukraine, which has made gas prices skyrocket--not just because of 
the sanctions, not because of Russia's production, but because of the 
lack of confidence in the future that this war has caused.
  Whenever our people go to the grocery store, they suffer the 
consequences of the havoc that the COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted on 
global supply chains. Unfortunately, we cannot erase the past crises 
that led to our current economic situation.
  I say to the Members of this Congress that we can take the meaningful 
steps today to lower prices for consumers and to stimulate America's 
economy in the weeks and months to come. That is why House Democrats 
are focusing all week on easing inflation and bringing costs down. I 
know that is what my Republican colleagues want to do as well.
  While this may not be a perfect alternative--there are no perfect 
alternatives--this is a positive step toward decreasing the costs to 
our people of things that they must buy: fuel and food. To support that 
mission, I am proud to bring the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act to the 
floor today, at Mr. Scott's request.
  America's farmers and ranchers have long fed our Nation, and indeed, 
much of the world. Despite their essential work, however, they have 
often struggled to turn a reliable profit in recent years because of 
rising expenses, associated particularly with fertilizer--the costs of 
which have gone up very substantially as a result of the crisis that we 
confront.

  By making fertilizer more affordable and by improving farmers' access 
to loans for precision agricultural technology, this legislation will 
help lower these production costs, which burden smaller farmers and 
contribute to higher consumer food prices.
  Additionally, this bill will lower gas prices by increasing biofuel 
adoption and investment, and by giving consumers greater fuel choices 
at the pump.
  Lack of competition in the meat and poultry processing industries has 
also jeopardized many of our family farmers and the people they feed. 
Competition is the essence of a free market. Competition is the essence 
of establishing prices that are reasonable and fair, both to producers 
and to consumers.
  Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help level that 
playing field for small and independent producers trying to break into 
the industry, which will both boost our meat processing capacity and 
stoke healthy competition and innovation, which both sides of the aisle 
believe is the way we have created this extraordinary economy we know 
as the American economy: competition and free markets.
  Similarly, this bill establishes a dedicated office within the 
Department of Agriculture to strengthen enforcement of existing 
antitrust authorities to consult on trade practices, ensuring a fairer, 
more competitive industry that works better for consumers.
  We know that if just a few producers have a monopoly--and that is one 
of the problems with oil prices. We have OPEC nations who have 
constricted supply when demand was up. What inevitably happens in a 
free market? Prices rise.
  This is about free markets. This is about competition. This is about 
fair pricing for consumers. These reforms will enable our farmers to 
produce food more efficiently, driving down costs for Americans at the 
grocery store.
  Not only will this legislation help us respond to the ramifications 
of crises like the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, but they will also 
make our agricultural sector and our economy more resilient to future 
shocks.
  This legislation is a crucial step toward reducing inflation. I thank 
Representative Spanberger, Representative Craig, and Representative 
Axne, and my friends on the Republican side who have worked on this, 
and my friends on the Democratic side who have worked on this.
  This is an important piece of legislation for the people--all of 
them. All of our Members listened closely to the concerns of their 
constituents and took a collaborative approach to come up with 
legislation that addresses some of the most pressing needs of the 
American people.

                              {time}  1030

  I thank the ranking member of this committee for his thoughtfulness 
in approaching this issue.
  Today, every Member of this House has an opportunity to do something 
to ease inflation. Every Member has an opportunity to vote to ease 
inflation today. We are eager to take that action, which is why we are 
bringing this to the floor and voting to pass it.
  I hope all of our Members will join us so we can show our 
constituents that their Congress is addressing inflation and working 
together on their behalf, not on our political behalves, but working 
together to pass this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues: vote ``yes.''
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), who is another 
great member of the House Agriculture Committee.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7606, 
the higher food and increased fuel costs act.
  I just cannot believe that at a time when we Americans all are paying 
more for everything, from gas, groceries, energy, and beyond, my 
colleagues on the left want more regulation and more government 
intervention. They want to blame Putin and the war in Ukraine, but they 
don't want to accept responsibility for the very policies that are 
helping drive these increased costs.
  If the last year has taught us anything, Mr. Speaker, it is that Big 
Government with a one-size-fits-all approach of spending into oblivion 
does not work. It turns out, shockingly, that taking cues from the 
Easter Bunny doesn't work.
  Look at the facts: fuel, 106 percent up; eggs, 32 percent increase; 
fresh and frozen chicken, up 19.3 percent; milk, up 15.9 percent; 
bacon, up 15.6 percent; baby food, up almost 13 percent. Oh, by the 
way, we can't find it. Let's talk about that.
  Right now, our farmers--and I know this for a fact because I come 
from a rural producing district--have their backs up against a wall. 
With skyrocketing prices for inputs like fertilizer, fuel, and feed, 
many of our producers are now reaching a breaking point.
  This administration, however, seems hellbent on pushing them over the 
edge. The regulatory regime at the EPA--and I use that word 
deliberately--threatens the very livelihood of our producers and the 
long-term food security of our Nation. Everyone in this room can agree 
that food security is national security, and it is dangerous policy 
what the left is doing in taking out our producers.
  Now, it seems as if they are more focused on Green New Deal policies, 
and our districts will never be the same if we continue down this path. 
Any sort of tax or additional regulation is increasing the costs to 
produce fuel and produce our food.
  This is a time when Americans, keep in mind, are making decisions 
between gas or groceries, and we are seriously up here talking about 
increasing costs for fuel and food? Give me a break.
  We need to slam the brakes on any policy that empowers more 
government bureaucrats and impoverishes the people.
  We need to ensure that the EPA does not threaten the future of our 
producers with such ridiculous, out-of-touch policies. I know that many 
of my colleagues, particularly in leadership, have not filled up a gas 
tank in probably 40 years, but I have. Two days ago, I paid over $5 per 
gallon of gas. That is what Americans are facing. We need to stop 
empowering these bureaucrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, if we adopt my motion to recommit, I will 
instruct the Committee on Agriculture to add my amendment that would 
prohibit the EPA from regulating or taxing emission from livestock.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support the motion to 
recommit.

[[Page H5627]]

  

  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much 
time is remaining on each side of the aisle.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 5 
minutes remaining. The gentleman has the only time remaining. The time 
of the gentleman from Georgia has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to replow some of the fields and the 
comments that have been offered here today. One of my friends on the 
Agriculture Committee on the other side, Ms. Spanberger, claims 
industry support. She referenced two specific organizations. But it is 
certainly not widespread support among farmers and ranchers.
  I will offer up this fact: Organizations that are constituted by 
farmers and ranchers, including the National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association, which is a large cattlemen's association throughout this 
country made up of men and women in the cattle industry, and the 
National Pork Producers Council are organizations that oppose this 
piece of legislation. The National Pork Producers Council is made up of 
farmers who raise hogs in so many different States in the United States 
of America. It is a huge industry in terms of agriculture. That 
organization opposes this bill.
  The National Chicken Council--poultry--is huge certainly in the State 
of Virginia, the State of Pennsylvania, and the State of Georgia. They 
oppose this piece of legislation that is on the floor today. The same 
thing with the National Turkey Federation and the North American Meat 
Institute. All are in opposition to this bill that we are voting on 
today.
  The American Farm Bureau Federation is not opposed publicly to the 
bill, but they have raised a litany of concerns and unanswered 
questions.
  This bill comes with an additional price tag of $700 million, not 
offset, on many of the other provisions. Quite frankly, there are zero 
dollars for this duplicative poison pill part of this bill, the special 
investigator for cattle and pork. That leaves me concerned that the 
existing enforcement resources that I have already made reference to 
with USDA and the Department of Justice is going to be drained. We are 
actually probably going to see less effective investigations as a 
result of this.
  We are going to see an increase in consolidation because it is a new 
layer. If you are a packer of any size, not just the four big ones, but 
medium and small size, and you have a new cop for cows on the beat, 
then you are going to have to add compliance staff to be able to 
prepare when, quite frankly, the Department of Justice and the Packers 
and Stockyards Division is already doing an incredible job. Active 
investigations are going on.
  I agree with an earlier speaker, I think it was Mr. Lucas from 
Oklahoma, if there is evidence of price-fixing and collusion, we have a 
regulatory mechanism and a litigation mechanism. People should be held 
accountable to that.
  Although there are some really good parts of this bill, I am also 
disappointed. We know that the only way we really get legislation 
through the other side of the Capitol, in the Senate, is where we show 
cohesion and where we stick together and work together. We have 
complete consensus on basically all the other aspects of this bill. We 
did request that this bill be divided and that the special investigator 
portion come out of the bill.
  I think we could be scoring some victories for the American people 
and for the American farmers. But, quite frankly, I think to be in line 
with President Biden, because President Biden's approach to everything, 
all the problems that have been created with his ill-fated policies, is 
that it is somebody else's fault.
  This is blaming the private sector, which works hard to provide us 
with the food that we need. This is blaming them when, quite frankly, 
it is a failure to take responsibility for what has happened on day 
one, starting with President Biden.
  We would love to work with President Biden to make sure we can 
address inflation, but adding this $700 million today, I have never 
seen, in my lifetime anyway, or my experience, how you can spend more 
money and spend your way out of inflation. It just doesn't work that 
way. The economics do not work that way. The inflation issue, again, I 
have never seen inflation reduced by spending more money.
  I would respectfully encourage, because we can go back to the drawing 
board and take each of these bills that are really good bills, the 
bipartisan and strong bills, we ought to take those up individually and 
give Congress an opportunity to speak on behalf of the American people 
and affirm that these are good bills. Let the special investigator 
stand on its own.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7606, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Each further amendment printed in part F of House Report 117-366 
shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be 
withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to 
a demand for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Khanna

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
1 printed in part F of House Report 117-366.
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 7, line 1, strike ``AGRICULTURE AND'' and all that 
     follows through ``TASK FORCE'' on line 4 and insert the 
     following: ``AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCY''.
       Page 7, after line 4, insert the following: ``Subtitle A--
     Agriculture and Food System Supply Chain Resilience and 
     Crisis Response Task Force''.
       Page 12, after line 4, add the following:

              Subtitle B--Addressing Fertilizer Shortages

     SEC. 311. ADDRESSING FERTILIZER SHORTAGES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall support 
     and incentivize domestic activities through grants, loans, 
     and other forms of assistance, to address fertilizer 
     shortages and deficiencies, diversify fertilizer sources, and 
     reduce dependency on foreign sources for fertilizer, 
     including by--
       (1) increasing the availability of innovative fertilizer 
     and fertilizer alternatives, including nitrogen, phosphate, 
     potassium, biological products and technologies, and other 
     nutrients that may assist in the production of agricultural 
     commodities;
       (2) increasing materials or tools that reduce the need for 
     fertilizer or support the more efficient use of fertilizer, 
     including nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, biological products 
     and technologies, and other nutrients that may assist in the 
     production of agricultural commodities;
       (3) supporting materials and facilities and research and 
     development, that may support the purposes of this section;
       (4) supporting sustainable agriculture production through 
     the supporting production of--
       (A) sustainable fertilizer produced in, or used in a manner 
     that, reduces the greenhouse gas impact; or
       (B) fertilizer produced through the use of renewable energy 
     sources, including incentivizing greater precision in 
     fertilizer use;
       (5) supporting activities or other measures that may 
     otherwise address competition-related challenges in the 
     United States fertilizer market and obstacles to producers in 
     obtaining affordable, responsibly manufactured fertilizer as 
     referred to in the notice entitled ``Access to Fertilizer: 
     Competition and Supply Chain Concerns'' published by the 
     Department of Agriculture in the Federal Register on March 
     17, 2022 (87 Fed Reg. 15191 et seq.); and
       (6) using the facilities and authorities of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation and the authorities under section 1473H of 
     the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3319k).
       (b) Priority Applicants.--In selecting activities to 
     support under this section, the Secretary shall give priority 
     to applications for such support containing proposals that 
     the Secretary determines will most quickly address fertilizer 
     shortages in the near term and mid-term.
       (c) Streamlined Process.--In providing assistance pursuant 
     to this section, the Secretary shall ensure that such 
     assistance be provided through a streamlined and expedient 
     process (as determined necessary by the Secretary) to quickly 
     address fertilizer shortages.
       (d) Administrative Funding.--Not more than 3 percent of the 
     funding provided under this section may be used by the 
     Secretary for administrative purposes.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts otherwise available,

[[Page H5628]]

     there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     section, $100,000,000, to remain available until expended.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment would authorize a new program at the 
Department of Agriculture to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of 
fertilizer. It is to make sure that America will be more self-
sufficient and that our farmers will be more self-sufficient with our 
fertilizers and not dependent on Russia or foreign countries.
  Everyone knows that retail fertilizer costs are at an all-time high. 
Putin's invasion of Ukraine is driving severe food shortages and severe 
fertilizer shortages. This has driven up food prices and hurt American 
farmers and consumers across the country. In my district, food prices 
are up and fertilizer prices are up.
  The cost of agricultural chemicals has more than doubled since the 
start of the pandemic, and one of the reasons is Russia is a major 
exporter of nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus fertilizers.
  We need to be less dependent on countries like Russia, and we need to 
develop these fertilizers here in the United States. That is why 
Congress must act on a bipartisan basis.
  This amendment is common sense. It would authorize $100 million for 
grants, loans, research and development, and other assistance for the 
Department of Agriculture to support our farmers in developing 
fertilizer made in the United States.
  It will support sustainable and innovative domestic production of 
fertilizers because our fertilizers are far more sustainable and far 
more innovative than the fertilizers we get from other parts of the 
world.
  It will invest in practices that reduce the use of fertilizers. One 
of the best things we can do for food prices and our environment is to 
reduce the need for fertilizers by having those fertilizers be more 
innovative.
  The amendment also bolsters competition in the fertilizer market.
  Most important, it makes us less dependent on the Russians and less 
dependent on the global supply chain. It will create jobs for domestic 
producers of fertilizers.
  The Department of Agriculture is already supporting American-made 
fertilizers through the Commodity Credit Corporation. My amendment will 
expand the Department's authority so they can prioritize solutions that 
will most quickly address these shortages.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this amendment. I thank Chairman 
Scott for working with me on this amendment. I also thank the 
Agriculture Committee staff of Anne Simmons, Lyron Blum-Evitts, 
Prescott Martin, Josh Lobert, and Luke Theriot for their work, and 
Kevin Fox on my team.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I express my appreciation 
to the gentleman for bringing forth a concept that could provide 
relief, but not for many years.
  This is an amendment to a bill that talks about immediate reduction 
in food prices, but this is kind of a long-term investment. I 
appreciate that concept, but it is not what this bill says. It really 
doesn't contribute to immediate relief to American consumers or 
reducing input costs for our farmers in the immediate or near term.
  Working together is how the House Committee on Agriculture solves 
problems. The committee has been working together with the Department 
to better understand this amendment, its purpose, and its implications.
  Mr. Speaker, the Department and I have agreed that this is not a 
near-term solution to the high price and limited availability of 
fertilizer.
  As the gentleman knows, this amendment was pulled from consideration 
by my Democratic colleagues in a recent committee markup.

                              {time}  1045

  Unfortunately, we have not learned much since then, which furthers my 
opposition to it. Growing the size of government by codifying the Biden 
administration's half-baked initiatives, authorizing $100 million, 
specifying further use of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and 
minimally funded research programs is no way to tackle rising inflation 
or to address skyrocketing fertilizer costs. In fact, it leaves us in a 
rather more tenuous situation when it comes to our farmers.
  The Commodity Credit Corporation is what we use and what we depend on 
and rely on when our farmers fall on difficult times. And they are 
there, these input costs.
  Not in all commodities but in most commodities, we see a record price 
that they are getting for their commodity. But the fact is that 
agriculture is a business. Farming is a business. Ranching is a 
business. At the end of the day, it is the margin. It is not what you 
get paid. You have to consider what you are paying in input costs.
  With this inflation, with these types of policies we are talking 
about today, there will be many commodities that soon will be upside 
down. They will be more expensive to produce than what they are able to 
get for price. There are commodities that are already at that point.
  Draining the CCC in any year, in 2022, is not only wrong; it is 
dangerous. We are not going to have the resources to be able to help 
our farmers to keep them farming and to use the CCC for what its 
primary purpose and mission was about.
  Even more perplexing is the idea we would want to solidify in law 
concepts that USDA admittedly has not developed into programming or 
policy, as the public comment period was just extended yet again.
  Now, we would have been better served by considering Republican 
amendments, all of which would have provided immediate relief through 
reversing the regulatory assault stifling the innovation and 
exacerbating strained supply chains.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I respect the ranking member. We have worked together on a number of 
initiatives.
  I would just say that this amendment, by giving the Commodity Credit 
Corporation resources, is helping make things in America. Whether it is 
immediate or whether it is over the next few months, we should have a 
bipartisan consensus that we ought to be making more things in this 
country and be less dependent on Russia and foreign sources.
  While I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, I also hope that we 
can continue to work with the other side to find common ground over 
this Congress so that we can get bipartisan support for an effort to 
build more fertilizer in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  The gentleman offered an amendment. He is a good friend. We do work 
together. Another area of jurisdiction on the Agriculture Committee 
that shocks people, actually, is cryptocurrency because it is a 
commodity and traded and overseen by CFTC. He has been such a great 
partner as we have worked together with those solutions.
  The whole concept of bipartisan work, it is alive and well in the 
Agriculture Committee, but just not reflected with this poison pill 
that is in this particular piece of legislation.
  With this amendment, I think, as I said before, yes, we need to be 
looking long term. But this legislation we are dealing with today, 
according to the Democrats, is supposed to have an immediate reduction 
in inflation.
  While I believe we do need to do an investment long term and look at 
other methods of producing fertilizer, this doesn't really fit with 
reducing prices for American families today. To do it and do it right, 
we really do need USDA on board. We need to have their input. We need 
to have their ability to do this through their programming.

[[Page H5629]]

  This is something I look forward to continuing to work on with the 
gentleman. I continue to voice my opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Khanna).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Spanberger

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
2 printed in part F of House Report 117-366.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order by the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, line 1, strike ``AGRICULTURE AND'' and all that 
     follows through ``TASK FORCE'' on line 4 and insert the 
     following: ``AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCY''.
       Page 7, after line 4, insert the following: ``Subtitle A--
     Agriculture and Food System Supply Chain Resilience and 
     Crisis Response Task Force''.
       Page 12, after line 4, add the following:

           Subtitle B--American Food Supply Chain Resiliency

     SEC. 311. SUPPLY CHAIN REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS.

       The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

               ``Subtitle H--Food Supply Chain Resiliency

     ``SEC. 298. SUPPLY CHAIN REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, shall 
     enter into cooperative agreements with eligible entities to 
     establish not fewer than 6 Supply Chain Regional Resource 
     Centers to support small-sized and medium-sized producers of 
     agricultural products and small-sized and medium-sized 
     agricultural businesses through activities, which may 
     include--
       ``(1) offering coordination, technical assistance, and 
     capacity building support to small-sized and medium-sized 
     producers of agricultural products and agricultural 
     businesses;
       ``(2) supporting supply chain and value chain 
     coordination--
       ``(A) in the region in which such producers or businesses 
     are located; and
       ``(B) with the Department of Agriculture, other Federal, 
     State, and Tribal agencies with relevant resources, regional 
     commissions, and other Supply Chain Regional Resource 
     Centers;
       ``(3) providing technical assistance to such producers and 
     businesses;
       ``(4) providing grants or other financial assistance to 
     such producers and businesses looking to expand production or 
     a business or start production or a business in such region; 
     and
       ``(5) carrying out such other activities as may be 
     specified by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Focus on Tribal Supply Chain Issues.--At least one 
     Supply Chain Regional Resource Center established pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall provide coordination, assistance, and 
     capacity building support to address supply chain issues 
     faced by Indian tribes and Tribal organizations (as defined 
     in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)).
       ``(c) Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--An eligible entity (including an entity 
     representing a partnership) seeking to enter into a 
     cooperative agreement under this section shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application, at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including how the Supply Chain Regional Resource Centers 
     established by such entity will address food and agricultural 
     supply chain issues faced by underserved communities.
       ``(2) Regional diversity.--In selecting eligible entities 
     to enter into a cooperative agreement under this section, the 
     Secretary shall ensure the regional diversity of such 
     entities.
       ``(d) Term.--The term of a cooperative agreement entered 
     into under this section shall be not less than 4 years.
       ``(e) Coordination.--A Supply Chain Regional Resource 
     Center shall, as a condition on entering into a cooperative 
     agreement under this section, agree to coordinate with other 
     Supply Chain Regional Resource Centers, when appropriate.
       ``(f) Report to Congress.--Beginning not later than 2 years 
     after the date of the enactment of the Lower Food and Fuel 
     Costs Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate a report on--
       ``(1) with respect to the activities carried out by the 
     Secretary under this section--
       ``(A) a description of such activities; and
       ``(B) the impact of such activities on supply chain issues 
     faced by small-sized and medium-sized producers of 
     agricultural products; and
       ``(2) with respect to the activities carried out by the 
     Supply Chain Regional Resource Centers under this section--
       ``(A) a description of such activities;
       ``(B) the impact of such activities on supply chain issues 
     faced by small-sized and medium-sized producers of 
     agricultural products and agricultural businesses; and
       ``(C) any grants awarded by Supply Chain Regional Resource 
     Centers to such producers and businesses.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) a State government (or a political subdivision 
     thereof), regional authority, or an Indian Tribe or Tribal 
     organization;
       ``(B) a college or university (as defined in section 1404 
     of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103)) (including a 
     land-grant college or university); or
       ``(C) a nonprofit organization, including a producer 
     network or association, a food council, an economic 
     development corporation, or another organization.
       ``(2) State.--The term `State' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103).
       ``(h) Funding.--In addition to amounts otherwise available, 
     there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     section $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 
     2026.
       ``(i) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     interpreted to undermine or narrow the authority of the 
     Secretary to carry out activities described in subsection (a) 
     under any other authority of the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 312. AGRICULTURE INNOVATION CENTERS PROGRAM.

       Section 6402(a) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1632b(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) applied research, technical assistance, support 
     services, outreach, and other services to strengthen, 
     maintain, and secure supply chains related to value-added 
     agricultural commodities and products produced in the United 
     States.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in support of my amendment to include the American Food Supply 
Chain Resiliency Act in H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel Cost Act. I 
thank Congressman Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio for his partnership on this 
bipartisan legislation.
  Supply chain disruptions are impacting the operations of businesses 
in Virginia and across the country, leaving shelves empty and driving 
up prices for consumers. For crop and livestock producers, as well as 
agribusinesses, the current disruptions are a threat to their 
livelihoods and their ability to deliver high-quality products at an 
affordable price while still making ends meet.
  Meanwhile, Americans are suffering from rising food prices at grocery 
stores, dollar stores, and restaurants. Rising inflation makes trips to 
the grocery store more and more stressful as the price of staple items 
like meat, eggs, and vegetables rise, sometimes going up monthly, even 
weekly.
  Americans have shared the experience of going to the grocery store--
we all have--picking up our favorite food items that we have purchased 
for years and thinking, well, this is more expensive than last week. My 
husband and I were just talking about this issue over the weekend as we 
changed our own shopping list because of it.
  Few products are more essential than the foods we eat. Farmers, 
particularly small- and medium-sized producers, have been left out of 
investments that are meant to mitigate supply chain challenges, and 
that has meant it is getting more difficult to get products from the 
farm to the market and, finally, to the table.
  While big companies have the budget to invest in supply chain 
innovations, research, and experts, small- and medium-sized producers 
are paying higher prices than ever for fertilizer, fuel, shipping, and 
other input costs.
  When farmers pay more to produce food, all Americans pay more at the

[[Page H5630]]

grocery store. That is why we must empower USDA to do more to resolve 
farmers' and food businesses' supply chain challenges. We must be 
prepared.
  To address these concerns, I was proud to lead the bipartisan 
American Food Supply Chain Resiliency Act. This legislation would 
establish supply chain regional resource centers through cooperative 
agreements with the Agricultural Marketing Service at USDA.
  These resource centers would offer locally tailored coordination, 
technical assistance, and grants to small- and medium-sized producers 
and agribusinesses, leading to stronger supply chains. This bill would 
also expand the great work of the Agriculture Innovation Program to 
include research and support on supply chains.
  By establishing supply chain regional resource centers, this bill 
would provide additional support to family farmers and food businesses 
trying to deliver their goods at a lower price for consumers. These 
centers would help local producers get through lean years, obtain the 
inputs they need, and address challenges related to transportation 
costs, labor, and high energy prices.
  In fact, USDA has already taken similar steps to build collaboration 
across sectors of local and regional food supply chains through 
regional centers. Our bipartisan legislation would support and build on 
these centers, as well as make sure they are a wise, tailored 
investment with a clear mission and fair reporting requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan bill. 
Once again, I thank Congressman Gonzalez for his partnership.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I express my appreciation 
to the gentlewoman from Virginia for bringing forth an idea, and I do 
wish the same courtesy had been extended to my Republican colleagues 
who were denied the opportunity to bring their amendments forward for 
debate.
  Working together is how the House Committee on Agriculture solves 
problems, and the committee has been working together with the 
Department to better understand this amendment, its purpose, and its 
implications.
  As the gentlewoman knows, this amendment was pulled from 
consideration by my Democrat colleagues in a recent committee markup. 
Unfortunately, we have not learned much since then, which furthers my 
opposition to it being considered prematurely on the floor today.
  I cannot support this amendment as written, an amendment that falls 
short of its advertised goals, and does not offer any immediate relief 
to farmers, ranchers, or consumers, because that is the myth that my 
Democrat friends are trying to sell with the overall bill today, which 
will not happen. In fact, I am afraid inflationary costs, more 
concentration, are going to occur as a result of a specific part of the 
package.
  Growing the size of government by codifying the Biden 
administration's half-baked initiatives is no way to tackle rising 
inflation or address rising fuel and fertilizer costs.
  Even more perplexing is the idea that we would want to solidify in 
law concepts that USDA admittedly has not developed into programming or 
policy.
  Now, we would have been better served by considering Republican 
amendments, all of which would have provided immediate relief through 
reversing the regulatory assault stifling innovation and exacerbating 
strained supply chains.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My colleague on the other side of the aisle mentioned that this bill 
will not provide immediate relief, and I concur. This bill is not meant 
to provide immediate relief. The amendment before us would plan for the 
future and would recognize that we face disruptions in our supply 
chain, and frequently, when we do, it is our farmers and producers who 
are impacted, particularly smaller and medium-sized producers like 
those in our districts.
  This bill, this amendment to the larger bill, is an issue of planning 
for the future, recognizing disruptions that may come, and being able 
to proactively plan for such challenges.
  It is unfortunate that the gentleman feels that they were left out of 
the process, but I am heartened that the scope of concern relates to 
the process and not the underlying amendment.
  This amendment is about long-term planning. It is about ensuring that 
our smaller and medium-sized producers and agribusinesses have the 
technical assistance, the support, and the coordination that they will 
need to weather challenges in supply chain disruptions that may occur 
today, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years into the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, to reiterate, in my comments, I said it was premature, 
and I do believe it is. I think that this is a concept that the 
gentlewoman is pursuing that is worthy of consideration, worthy of 
development and full development so that we can have an appropriate 
consideration of the text of this particular amendment.
  I also think it is out of place with this particular bill because the 
context, the pretext that my Democratic friends are presenting here, is 
a false promise that whatever would pass, and if this would somehow 
find a pathway through the Senate and be implemented, that it would 
immediately lower food and fuel costs. That is just not the case.
  This is more of a long-term vision. I appreciate that because I think 
we should be looking long term when it comes to the needs of input 
costs for our farmers because, quite frankly, when we have inflation, 
when we have burdensome regulations, when we have an administration 
that is really out of control from a regulatory perspective, sidelining 
their scientists at the EPA--which, by the way, actually, part of those 
are funded under a public-private partnership with agribusinesses to 
make sure that farmers can have access to crop protection tools, 
significant crop protection tools that have been sidelined by this 
administration, when these same scientists have found them to be safe 
in application in the past.
  What I would say is that I look forward to working with the 
gentlewoman in the future on this concept, but I continue to remain in 
opposition.
  This is not quite ready for prime time, not ready for consideration. 
We need to be working more. We need more time working in a bipartisan 
way and, quite frankly, hearing from the administration as well and 
USDA.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There is no disagreement that across America's regions and across our 
commodities, our Nation's farmers and ranchers have gotten the short 
end of the stick, particularly when it comes to rising input costs as a 
result of supply chain bottlenecks and inflation.
  The Lowering Food and Fuel Costs Act and this amendment take crucial, 
commonsense steps toward addressing these challenges, both now and into 
the future, planning for a future where we can be proactive, 
continually so, and ensure that small and targeted investments from 
USDA today can have impacts on small- and medium-sized producers' 
ability to get food to market and improve their bottom lines.
  At the same time, these investments should also lead to lower food 
prices for Americans at the grocery store, convenience stores, and 
restaurants.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. I look 
forward to working with my colleague across the aisle to receive 
additional, very specific feedback on how we can make some of these 
provisions stronger, better with that input into the future.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment in front 
of us and, ultimately, ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

[[Page H5631]]

  

  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I continue to offer my 
opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question is ordered on the 
bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Cammack of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     7606 to the Committee on Agriculture.

  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Cammack is as follows:

       Page 2, after line 3, add the following:

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     not promulgate or implement any regulation under the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) imposing the collection of a 
     fee, or requiring any source to obtain a permit under title V 
     of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7661 et seq.), for carbon dioxide, 
     nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions resulting 
     from biological processes associated with livestock 
     production.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. 
This is a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 206, 
nays 218, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 276]

                               YEAS--206

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Conway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack

                               NAYS--218

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Armstrong
     Casten
     Costa
     Garcia (CA)
     Zeldin

                              {time}  1139

  Mses. TLAIB, OMAR, Mr. FOSTER, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY, Messrs. 
THOMPSON of California, LEVIN of California, CLEAVER, Ms. CHU, Mr. 
PASCRELL, Mses. JACKSON LEE, SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Ms. 
SCANLON, Messrs. RUSH, SHERMAN, and O'HALLERAN changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GRAVES of Louisiana, COLE, and BANKS changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

     Amodei (Balderson)
     Bergman (Stauber)
     Blunt Rochester (Brown (MD))
     Bonamici (Beyer)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Neguse)
     Brooks (Weber (TX))
     Brownley (Kuster)
     Bustos (Mrvan)
     Cardenas (Correa)
     Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
     Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
     Davids (KS) (Neguse)
     Davis, Danny K. (Beyer)
     Doggett (Beyer)
     Evans (Beyer)
     Garcia (IL) (Takano)
     Gohmert (Weber (TX))
     Gomez (Huffman)
     Gonzalez (OH) (Meijer)
     Guest (Fleischmann)
     Johnson (GA) (Manning)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kahele (Mrvan)
     Katko (Moore (UT))
     Kelly (IL) (Neguse)
     Krishnamoorthi (Neguse)
     Lamb (Neguse)
     LaMalfa (Valadao)
     Lawrence (Stevens)
     Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Long (Fleischmann)
     Loudermilk (Fleischmann)
     Mace (Carter (GA))
     McEachin (Beyer)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Newman (Beyer)
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Peters (Jeffries)
     Pingree (Wasserman Schultz)
     Porter (Neguse)

[[Page H5632]]


     Price (NC) (Manning)
     Rice (SC) (Meijer)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Stanton (Huffman)
     Suozzi (Beyer)
     Swalwell (Correa)
     Taylor (Van Duyne)
     Tenney (Jackson)
     Titus (Pallone)
     Trahan (Stevens)
     Wagner (McHenry)
     Walorski (Bucshon)
     Waters (Takano)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (Pallone)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mrvan). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 204, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 277]

                               YEAS--221

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Bacon
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Feenstra
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hartzler
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hinson
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Miller-Meeks
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--204

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Conway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Armstrong
     Casten
     Garcia (CA)
     Zeldin

                              {time}  1156

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Amodei (Balderson)
     Bergman (Stauber)
     Blunt Rochester (Brown (MD))
     Bonamici (Beyer)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Neguse)
     Brooks (Weber (TX))
     Brownley (Kuster)
     Bustos (Mrvan)
     Cardenas (Correa)
     Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
     Costa (Correa)
     Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
     Davids (KS) (Neguse)
     Davis, Danny K. (Beyer)
     Doggett (Beyer)
     Evans (Beyer)
     Garcia (IL) (Takano)
     Gohmert (Weber (TX))
     Gomez (Huffman)
     Gonzalez (OH) (Meijer)
     Guest (Fleischmann)
     Johnson (GA) (Manning)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kahele (Mrvan)
     Katko (Moore (UT))
     Kelly (IL) (Neguse)
     Krishnamoorthi (Neguse)
     Lamb (Neguse)
     LaMalfa (Valadao)
     Lawrence (Stevens)
     Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Long (Fleischmann)
     Loudermilk (Fleischmann)
     Mace (Carter (GA))
     McEachin (Beyer)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Newman (Beyer)
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Peters (Jeffries)
     Pingree (Wasserman Schultz)
     Porter (Neguse)
     Price (NC) (Manning)
     Rice (SC) (Meijer)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Stanton (Huffman)
     Suozzi (Beyer)
     Swalwell (Correa)
     Taylor (Van Duyne)
     Tenney (Jackson)
     Titus (Pallone)
     Trahan (Stevens)
     Wagner (McHenry)
     Walorski (Bucshon)
     Waters (Takano)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (Pallone)

                          ____________________