[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18784-18863]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 248 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2646.

                              {time}  1026


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2646) to provide for the continuation of agricultural 
programs through fiscal year 2011, with Mr. Hastings of Washington 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
October 3, 2001, Amendment Number 52, printed in the Congressional 
Record, by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) had been disposed of 
and the amendment in the nature of a substitute was open to amendment 
at any point.
  Are there further amendments?


                Amendment No. 61 Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 61 offered by Mr. Tierney:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 932. REPORT REGARDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than one year after funds are 
     made available to carry out this section, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, acting through the National Academy of Sciences, 
     shall complete and transmit to Congress a report that 
     includes recommendations for the following:
       (1) Data and tests.--The type of data and tests that are 
     needed to sufficiently assess and evaluate human health risks 
     from the consumption of genetically engineered foods.
       (2) Monitoring system.--The type of Federal monitoring 
     system that should be created to assess any future human 
     health consequences from long-term consumption of genetically 
     engineered foods.
       (3) Regulations.--A Federal regulatory structure to approve 
     genetically engineered foods that are safe for human 
     consumption.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $500,000 
     to carry out this section.

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, the safety of our food supply is one of 
our Nation's top priorities obviously, but increasingly, Americans are 
becoming concerned about the genetically engineered ingredients that 
are in their food. Because of that concern, I have introduced this 
reasonable amendment that provides for a National Academy of Sciences 
study to examine three important health-related aspects of genetically 
engineered foods.
  First, that the tests being performed on genetically engineered foods 
to ensure their health safety are adequate and relevant.
  Second, what type of monitoring system is needed to assess future 
health consequences from genetically engineered foods.
  And third, what type of regulatory structure should be in place to 
approve genetically engineered foods for humans to eat.
  Genetically engineered crops can be found in many of the foods we eat 
every day. Potato chips, soda, baby food, they all contain genetically 
engineered ingredients. Last year, many Americans became aware of the 
pervasiveness of these ingredients in our food when Starlink corn that 
was genetically engineered wound up in human food, and not just the 
animal feed for which it was approved.
  We need to address this issue before we have more unexpected 
incidents like this.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue is not going to be resolved on its own. 
Several States, including my home State of Massachusetts, are 
considering legislation that would impose a moratorium on the planting 
of genetically engineered crops. In the meantime, the number of 
genetically engineered crops planted by farmers is continuing to grow.
  In the year 2000, more than 100 million acres of land around the 
world were planted with genetically engineered crops. This is 25 times 
as much as was planted just 4 years before. If we do not make an effort 
to ensure the best testing, monitoring and regulatory structures are in 
place now, our farmers are going to suffer the consequences of any 
future lack of public confidence in genetically engineered foods.
  This effort has been endorsed by the Center for Science in the Public 
Interest, an organization devoted to improving the safety and 
nutritional quality of our food supply, and I urge all of my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this common sense amendment to protect our 
farmers and our families.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's offering the 
amendment, and I know that this is of great concern. I wanted to 
mention that numerous studies have been undertaken by private 
scientific societies, public universities, regulatory agencies and the 
National Academy of Sciences, which have addressed and dismissed this 
question.
  While the initial reaction to this amendment may be to question the 
duplicative nature of yet another study, I recognize there is value in 
continued education, evaluation of the ability to oversee the 
application of new technologies to our food production and processing 
systems, and I would like to indicate to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that the committee would be happy to accept the 
amendment.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  It is generally agreed that the 21st century brings with it a new era 
of biological sciences, with the advances in molecular biology and 
biotechnology that promises longer, healthier lives and the effective 
control, perhaps elimination of a host of acute and chronic diseases. 
Right now we have the best safeguards in the world in testing any new 
food product.
  The biotechnological development of new plants that is achieved 
through this new technology is more safe (according to witnesses 
testifying at five hearings I have had now in my Subcommittee on 
Research) more safe than the traditional cross-breeding or hybrid 
breeding of plants. Most everything that we eat now, and buy at the 
grocery store, has been genetically modified. The genetic modification 
has been accomplished by crossing one plant with another. With maybe 25 
to 30,000 genes in a typical plant crossed with another plant, not 
knowing what the end result is going to be is potentially more 
dangerous than using the new technology.
  With the new biotechnology, we have the ability to identify 
particular genes and the folding of proteins related to those genes to 
help assure that the resulting product is going to be safe. In addition 
to that, we have the best regulatory safeguards anywhere in the world, 
with USDA, with the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency all looking into safeguarding these new plant and 
food products.

[[Page 18785]]

  I would hope we would not support any suggestion that is going to 
reduce the scientific effort to achieve the kind of new food and feed 
products that we need in this country and that have the potential of 
being helpful to third world countries and a hungry world. The kind of 
food products that could, for example, grow in the arid soils where 
they were not able to grow in the past; food products that provide 
vaccines or important vitamins and nutrients.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Pickering

  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Pickering:
       At the end of title IX, add the following section:

     SEC. 9__. MARKET NAME FOR PANGASIUS FISH SPECIES.

       The term ``catfish'' may not be considered to be a common 
     or usual name (or part thereof) for the fish Pangasius 
     bocourti, or for any other fish not classified within the 
     family Ictalariidae, for purposes of section 403 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including with respect 
     to the importation of such fish pursuant to section 801 of 
     such Act.

  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity first to 
thank the Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for their 
leadership on the underlying legislation, the farm bill, which is 
greatly needed to stabilize and secure the farm economy as we go 
forward over the next decade.
  The amendment that I have before us today is very simple. In December 
2000, the FDA made a unilateral decision to allow the Vietnamese to 
label basafish as catfish. Now, this is equivalent to allowing water 
buffalo to be imported into this country under the label of beef.
  Since that time we have seen false, deceptive, and misleading 
labeling of this product. For example, we have cajun delight catfish, 
we have delta fresh farm raised catfish, and I can tell my colleagues 
that we do not have these fish raised in the Mississippi Delta. It is 
misleading.
  The tragedy is that we have allowed a situation to occur which is 
hurting an industry born a generation ago in Mississippi and Louisiana 
and Arkansas and across the southeast that has given the catfish the 
good name and the good flavor it has. This industry has created a vital 
and important contribution to my State's economy. We need to do 
everything that we can to make sure that our trade practices and 
labeling are fair.
  This amendment will do that and will require the labeling of the 
Vietnamese import to be basa, as it should be.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize and thank my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Shows), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), who are 
joining with me. I also want to thank the chairman for his work with me 
in this effort.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PICKERING. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I 
understand the problem that the catfish farmers are facing as a result 
of an imported fish being inappropriately labeled.
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) has worked hard to 
develop a solution to this problem both administratively and 
legislatively. We can continue to work to try to find solutions to the 
problem. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and will be happy to 
accept it.
  Mr. PICKERING. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I 
want to join with my colleague from Mississippi this morning in support 
of this amendment.
  The catfish industry in America is a very innovative, creative 
industry. My father was one of the pioneers in that industry. I think 
he would be terribly disappointed today to see what we are allowing to 
happen as basafish are being brought into this country and mislabeled 
catfish or mislabeled delta fresh. They are two completely different 
products. They are genetically different. This would be the same as 
calling a cat a cow, and we just simply should not allow it.
  The Vietnamese basafish claim to be delta fresh. There is no way that 
this can be possible and it misleads our customers. The Vietnamese 
basafish are raised using cages thrown into the Mekong River, one of 
the most polluted watersheds in the world.
  It is costing our producers about 10 to 20 cents a pound as they try 
to stay in business. They are struggling right now. They have a very 
difficult marketplace because of the situation that this basafish 
import has created. This price differential has made it so that our 
producers are no longer profitable.
  We simply cannot continue to let unsafe, mislabeled product destroy 
our catfish producers in this country. Delta farm-raised catfish are of 
the highest quality. They are clearly what the consumers want, and we 
should not allow the mislabeling of Vietnamese basafish to continue and 
to mislead our consumers.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Pickering) and all my colleagues in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, right now we know what rural America and rural 
Mississippi is going through in agriculture. It is being depleted and 
we are losing jobs and farmers every day. Catfish may not be a big 
industry in the rest of the country, but catfish is the fourth largest 
agricultural product in Mississippi. All the catfish feed mills and 
processing plants are either family-owned or farmer-owned cooperatives.
  Our family farmers are on the verge of going out of business and the 
Vietnamese imported fish industry is putting them out of business. 
Vietnamese fish products labeled as farm-raised catfish are flooding 
our markets today. The Vietnamese farmers are producing inferior, 
potentially unsafe fish products and disguising them with labels that 
imitate the ones we place on ours, like farm-raised catfish. It is a 
ploy to mislead and confuse the consumer about the origin of the 
product.
  In 1997, the U.S. imported 120,000 pounds of Vietnamese fish product. 
Just 4 years later, in 2001, we are up to almost 20 million pounds of 
so-called farm-raised catfish. The Vietnamese Government has verbally 
agreed to cooperate with the American trade officials about labeling 
the fish products, but we cannot rest on their assertions. This is why 
I wholeheartedly support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues 
to protect our American catfish and our farmers in rural America.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I want to thank Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for 
working endlessly on the Farm Security Act of 2001. I want them to know 
that I think they have done a superb job. I think it is an excellent 
bill. The producers in my district think it is an excellent bill, in 
spite of what some other people might say. I sincerely appreciate their 
efforts to include the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education 
and Child Nutrition Program in the trade title of the farm bill.
  Missouri's own Harry Truman joined 20,000 Americans on May the 8th, 
1946, in sending food donations to victims and survivors of World War 
II. Many of these recipients were children. And when the packages 
reached the port at LeHavre, France, it was clear that the folks in the 
U.S. had joined forces to help those in need, something that Americans 
have always done at home and abroad.
  We are fortunate to have overcome the scars of starvation experienced 
in

[[Page 18786]]

World War II here in this country, but the battle against hunger and 
for survival still exists today. We know the school lunch program here 
in America has made a genuine difference in the lives of hungry 
children; but, unfortunately, children in other countries are still 
starving. Three hundred million poor children are undernourished, and 
35,000 children die every day from hunger-related disease and illness. 
A hungry child cannot learn.
  I am very, very proud of the bill that my colleague, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and I introduced, the George 
McGovern and Bob Dole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Act of 2001, which is loosely based on our American School 
Lunch Program, which was originally sponsored in the United States 
Senate by Senator Dole and Senator McGovern, who are known worldwide 
for being champions of ending hunger.
  Now, the Food for Education Act would make permanent a pilot program 
for commodity donations that was established during the 106th Congress. 
This is truly a win-win endeavor for the United States. Not only are we 
able to feed children here at home and in poor countries, but we also 
use surpluses from our farmers and producers, and that helps strengthen 
their bottom lines at a time when our farmers are truly hurting.
  Additionally, it strengthens farm prices, and we all know that aid 
does lead to trade.
  So I just want to thank the chairman and the ranking member once 
again for including this very, very important piece of legislation 
within the bill.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I am honored today to be a cosponsor of the Pickering-Ross amendment 
to the farm bill. The farm-raised catfish industry is an important part 
of the economy of my congressional district, which covers all of south 
Arkansas, where many farm families have converted their row-crop farms 
into catfish farms in recent years in order to turn a more decent 
profit. In fact, Arkansas is number three in catfish sales in the 
Nation, with nearly $66 million, or 13 percent, of the total United 
States sales, behind only Mississippi and Alabama.
  Today, these catfish producers in my district and around the country, 
especially in the delta region, are being unfairly hurt by so-called 
catfish being dumped into American markets from Vietnam and sold as 
catfish. The truth is, it is not catfish. It is even not the same 
species of fish. In fact, American farm-raised catfish and Vietnamese 
so-called catfish are no more related than a cat is to a cow. Our 
amendment would protect our farm-raised catfish producers by saying 
that the term catfish cannot be used for any fish, such as the ones 
from Vietnam, that are not specifically a member of the catfish family.
  Last year, imports of Vietnamese catfish totaled 7 million pounds, 
more than triple the 2 million pounds imported in 1999 and more than 12 
times the 575,000 pounds imported back in 1998. Indications show that 
imports have now reached as much as 1 million pounds a month. Many 
catfish farmers estimate that these imports have taken away as much as 
20 percent of their market share.
  In Vietnam, the so-called catfish can be produced at a much lower 
cost due to cheap labor and less stringent environmental regulations. 
Many of these fish are being grown in cages in polluted rivers. Then 
they are dumped into American markets and passed off as farm-raised 
catfish.

                              {time}  1045

  This dumping of so-called catfish into our country not only hurts our 
farm families, if hurts our working families. Many of the plants where 
the catfish are processed, hire workers who are making the transition 
from welfare to work.
  Just a few weeks ago, I visited a plant in my district in the Delta 
in Lake Village, Arkansas that has already been forced to cut their 
work schedule to a 4-day work week. Other catfish processing plants are 
facing similar problems, and some are even facing the possibility of 
having to close altogether.
  It is really quite simple. Our farmers and our workers do not mind 
competition, but they do mind when the competition is unfair. I urge my 
colleagues to support America's farm-raised catfish industry, our farm 
families, and our working families. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of title III for this bill, 
and in particular section 312, George McGovern-Robert Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
  I especially want to express my appreciation for the leadership of 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) for including this provision in the chairman's 
mark of title III when it was taken up by the Committee on 
International Relations.
  I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for negotiating on language and agreeing to 
include section 312 in the final version of H.R. 2646.
  I pledge to work with my colleagues and the administration to 
identify a reliable funding stream for this program as the farm bill 
moves through the legislative process. In the meantime, section 312 
makes it clear that the President may continue to use existing 
authorities to continue and expand the pilot program.
  In May, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and I introduced 
H.R. 1700, a bill to establish the Global Food for Education Program 
inspired by a proposal advocated by former Senators McGovern and Dole, 
this bill currently has 107 bipartisan cosponsors. Section 312 is a 
modified version of this bill.
  The George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Program would provide at least one nutritious meal each 
day in a school setting to many of the more than 300 million school 
children who go to bed hungry. Some 130 million of these children do 
not go to school because their parents need them to go to work at home 
or go to menial jobs or because they are orphaned by war, natural 
disasters, or diseases like AIDS.
  This program would complement and expand throughout the world 
America's own highly successful school breakfast and school lunch 
programs. It would expand the President's commitment to education and 
to leave no child behind to the international stage.
  A pilot program currently reaches 9 million children in 38 countries. 
With the provision in this bill, we now have the opportunity to create 
a permanent program and expand its reach to nearly 30 million children. 
We can blaze a trail for other donor nations to follow. We can 
demonstrate America's commitment to achieving the worldwide goal of 
cutting the number of hungry people in the world in half by 2015, while 
at the same time providing education for all.
  To carry out this program, we can call on the experience of groups 
like Catholic Relief Services, CARE, Save the Children, Land O'Lakes, 
and the United Nations World Food Program, that have successfully 
proven that school feeding programs get more children into school and 
keep them in school, especially girls.
  We can purchase the necessary commodities from American farmers, 
using the products of their hard labor to provide a school breakfast, 
lunch, power snack or take-home meal that will turn a listless and 
dull-eyed child into an attentive student. And American rail workers, 
truck drivers, dock workers, port authorities and merchant marine will 
make sure the food gets from our farms and our shores to where it is 
needed most.
  For just 10 cents a day for each meal, we can feed a hungry child and 
help that child learn. With what we pay for a Big Mac, fries, and a 
soft drink, we can afford to feed two entire classrooms of kids in 
Ghana or Nepal.
  In these difficult times, every action taken by the Congress, 
including this

[[Page 18787]]

farm bill, takes on added meaning in the eyes of the world community. 
In examining our farm and rural policy, we must seek to add value, 
economic, social, and moral, to the dollars we spend on farm policy. 
One of the ways we do this is by increasing international food aid 
through our existing programs and by undertaking new initiatives. This 
bill does both.
  For most of recent history, dating back to the 1950s, our country has 
been the single largest donor of international food assistance. The 
Global Food for Education Program, section 312, upholds that tradition. 
It is especially important, during this trying time for our Nation, 
that we continue our international involvement, particularly our aid to 
children in developing countries, so that the world can clearly see our 
abiding commitment to eradicating poverty, hunger, illiteracy, and 
intolerance.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman's work on title III and the 
increase in food aid programs. I strongly support the George McGovern-
Robert Dole International Food for Education Program, and I urge my 
colleagues to support these food aid programs.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also compliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
for including the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for 
Education in this farm bill.
  George McGovern is one of South Dakota's native sons, a Senator, 
candidate for President of this great country, and a humanitarian. 
Senator Dole is someone that he worked with on both sides of the aisle 
putting together a bipartisan plan that would help address the needs of 
needy children around the world.
  Coming from a farm State, the McGovern-Dole Food Act appeals to South 
Dakota because of its impact on the agricultural economy. While the 
food aid is shipped overseas, much of the money stays here in the 
United States. Domestic beneficiaries of food aid exports include 
agricultural producers, places like my home State of South Dakota, and 
suppliers, processors and millers .
  In addition, food aid leads to food trade. U.S. food aid alleviates 
poverty and promotes economic growth in recipient countries. At the 
same time as incomes in developing countries are rising, consumption 
patterns are changing and food and other imports of U.S. goods and 
services increase. In 1996, 9 of the top 10 agricultural importers of 
U.S. products were prior food aid recipients.
  It is important to note that this legislation targets hungry and 
malnourished children who are not going to school and who live in poor 
communities. They wish they did have the money to buy American 
agricultural products, but they do not.
  The overwhelming majority of these children reside in the 87 low-
income, food deficit countries of the world. So even their governments 
do not have the money to purchase our food.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe food aid is a better alternative to the 
billions of dollars in foreign aid that we spend every year. This 
legislation would assure that children in need get food assistance 
rather than giving money to some of the regimes around the world who 
have less-than-pure motives when it comes to the way that they treat 
their people.
  The United States has a surplus of its high-quality agricultural 
products. Why not help the starving children in underdeveloped nations 
by giving them a piece of that surplus.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the willingness of the leadership on both 
sides of the aisle to support this important initiative, this 
legislation which has been worked on so diligently by a couple of great 
statesmen and leaders in this countries, Senator McGovern and Senator 
Dole. And I appreciate that it has been made a part of this farm 
legislation, and I thank the leadership for their assistance with it. 
It is a win-win for American producers and hungry children across the 
world.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my good friend, Mr. Pickering. The United States 
Catfish industry is currently subjected to unfair trade competition 
which threatens the future success of many catfish producers and the 
communities they support. Frozen fish fillets of an entirely different 
family of fish are imported and unlawfully passed off to customers as 
``catfish''. This is happening in such large and increasing volumes 
that the true ``North American Catfish'' market is being flooded by a 
lesser quality product at a much cheaper price.
  American consumers are defrauded into believing that they are 
receiving farm raised U.S. catfish instead of another species of fish 
raised along the Mekong River in Vietnam. Most of the Vietnamese fish 
are raised in floating cages and ponds along the Mekong River Delta, 
feeding on whatever floats down the river. Yet the importers are 
fraudulently marketing them as farm-raised grain-fed catfish. Since the 
Vietnamese do not place a high value on cultivating the fish in a 
controlled environment, their cost of production is much lower.
  Importers of the Vietnam fish, searching for new markets, were 
allowed by the FDA to use the term ``catfish'' in combination with 
previously approved names. This has resulted in imports entering the 
U.S. in skyrocketing quantities. The amendment offered today will 
correct this mistake and help assure that consumers are receiving the 
quality product that they so desire.
  It is unlawful to pass a cheaper fish species off as another species. 
There is evidence of widespread illegal packaging and labeling of the 
Vietnamese fish which violates numerous existing laws, including the 
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, the Trade-Mark Act of 1946, the 
Customs origin marking requirements, and the Federal Food Drug and 
Cosmetic Act.
  Since 1997, the total import volume of Vietnamese catfish has risen 
from less than 500 thousand pounds to over 7 million pounds in 2000. 
According to the most recent data, imports are reaching levels of 2 
million pounds per month and are on target to reach over 20 million 
pounds this year. As of May this year, Vietnamese fish imports have 
captured an estimated 20% of the U.S. catfish fillet market.
  There are over 189,000 acres of land in catfish production, of which 
110,000 are in my home state of Mississippi. U.S. catfish farmers 
produce 600 million pounds of farm-raised catfish annually and require 
1.8 billion pounds of feed. This supports over 90,000 acres of corn, 
500,000 acres of soybeans, and cotton seed from over 230,000 acres of 
cotton.
  This very young industry has created a catfish market where none had 
previously existed. They have done this by investing substantial 
capital to producing a quality product which the consumer considers to 
be reliable, safe, and healthy. We cannot allow unfair competition to 
destroy the livelihood of farmers, processors, employees and 
communities which depend on the American catfish industry.
  I urge my colleagues to help protect the American catfish industry 
and ensure that consumers are receiving the quality product they expect 
by supporting the amendment offered by Mr. Pickering.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Pickering).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Holt

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Holt:
       At the end of title IX, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. PROGRAM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION REGARDING USE OF 
                   BIOTECHNOLOGY IN PRODUCING FOOD FOR HUMAN 
                   CONSUMPTION.

       (a) Public Information Campaign.--Not later than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall develop and implement a program to 
     communicate with the public regarding the use of 
     biotechnology in producing food for human consumption. The 
     information provided under the program shall include the 
     following:
       (1) Science-based evidence on the safety of foods produced 
     with biotechnology.
       (2) Scientific data on the human outcomes of the use of 
     biotechnology to produce food for human consumption.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--For each of fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2011 there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
     section.


[[Page 18788]]


  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is modeled after the Food 
Biotechnology Information Act, the legislation that I introduced in the 
106th Congress and again this year.
  The point of the bill and this amendment is to give consumers the 
best information possible so they can make informed choices about the 
food they eat.
  There is much uncertainty and much misinformation about biotechnology 
and food engineering. Certainly we need to be careful with 
biotechnology, as we need to be careful with all new and emerging 
technologies. With a tool this powerful, there are possibilities of 
damage and misuse. But as a scientist, I believe the use of 
biotechnology can provide greater yields of nutritionally enhanced 
foods with less land used and reduced use of pesticides and herbicides. 
That is to say, biotechnology can be a real benefit to the consumer and 
the environment.
  Biotechnology applications are already reviewed and controlled by the 
Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and other 
agencies. My amendment deals with public information. I think the 
government has a responsibility to provide clear, science-based, 
evidence-based public information that helps consumers, policymakers, 
and others make informed choices about foods.
  I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for including part of my legislation, the 
Food Biotechnology Information Act in this bill. It deals with sound 
scientific research, and I thank them for doing that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to complete this by including this 
information on this amendment on public information. It is a 
straightforward amendment that directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 
undertake an information campaign to provide scientifically based 
information to consumers to allow them to understand the benefits and 
indications of this new technology for their food choices.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's interest. 
Biotechnology offers extraordinary potential, not only to improve the 
economic viability of farms in the country, but to also help combat 
animal and plant diseases, improve food safety and quality, and enhance 
our ability to produce more food on less land with fewer agricultural 
inputs. Therefore, improving our ability to enhance the environment. I 
appreciate the gentleman's interest in the subject.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee would be pleased to accept the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I, too, think this is a good amendment. 
It could be very complementary to the activity that is already going on 
in the biotechnology community. Since science-based information is 
required, this is an excellent amendment; and I, too, join in its 
support.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Watkins of Oklahoma

  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 65 offered by Mr. Watkins of Oklahoma:
       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF FORECLOSURE ON CERTAIN REAL 
                   PROPERTY OWNED BY, AND RECOVERY OF CERTAIN 
                   PAYMENTS FROM, BORROWERS WITH SHARED 
                   APPRECIATION ARRANGEMENTS.

       During the period that begins with the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and December 31, 2002, in the case of a 
     borrower who has failed to make a payment required under 
     section 353(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act with respect to real property, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture--
       (1) shall suspend foreclosure on the real property by 
     reason of the failure; and
       (2) may not attempt to recover the payment from the 
     borrower.

  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I salute the gentleman from 
Texas (Chairman Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for the job they have done in putting together 
this tough piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a strong commitment to agriculture. I know that 
it is a very difficult issue to work through. It is a very important 
program for this great country and for the economy that we have which 
extends around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment; and I offer this amendment to the 
farm bill which is vitally important to many family farmers across the 
country. My amendment would temporarily suspend the collection 
schedule, the foreclosures, until December 31, 2002, about 14 months, 
on certain real property owned by, and recovery of certain payments 
from farmer-borrowers with shared appreciation agreements.
  Beginning in 1989, over 12,000 family farmers enrolled in shared 
appreciation agreement. These agreements allowed farmers and ranchers 
that so desperately need it to restructure their debt.
  After 10 years, many of these farmers have been shocked and find 
themselves in conflict with their own government about the repayment 
and the type of schedule they must go through, and also how these new 
payments have been calculated.
  My amendment is important to many of our family farmers, especially a 
lot of our elderly farmers in America. You cannot find a more committed 
and dedicated people to our land, our soil, and our country; but many 
farmers believe they have been misled by their government. I think it 
is very important we allow ample time, and this is what my amendment 
actually does.

                              {time}  1100

  We have got to look at the calculations and the recapturing costs and 
values of this. It gives the committee and others ample time to look 
into these before many of our farmers and ranchers are hurt even 
further.
  I would like to request that the chairman and his ranking member 
accept this to allow us the time to be able to look into it.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. I appreciate the gentleman working with the committee on 
trying to come up with this amendment and his advance notice of it. We 
have looked at it. We appreciate the gentleman's interest in 
agriculture. We wish he served on our committee, but I understand that 
the powerful committee that he is on has an agricultural interest as 
well. I would like to tell the gentleman that the committee would be in 
a position to accept the amendment.
  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. I thank the chairman and the ranking member.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Watkins).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Andrews:
       At the end of subtitle F of title II, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE FOR REPAUPO CREEK TIDE GATE 
                   AND DIKE RESTORATION PROJECT, NEW JERSEY.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 403 of the 
     Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16

[[Page 18789]]

     U.S.C. 2203), the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through 
     the Natural Resources Conservation Service, shall provide 
     assistance for planning and implementation of the Repaupo 
     Creek Tide Gate and Dike Restoration Project in the State of 
     New Jersey.
       (b) Funding.--Of the funds available for the Emergency 
     Watershed Protection Program, not to exceed $600,000 shall be 
     available to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out 
     subsection (a).


         Modification to Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
be modified by striking subparagraph B.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Andrews:
       Strike subsection (b).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman 
Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for their excellent work on this 
piece of legislation.
  This amendment deals with a very serious problem in Gloucester 
County, New Jersey, in my district which could lead to severe flooding, 
loss of life and property damage for hundreds of families who live 
adjacent to the Repaupo Creek. The tide gate, which is supposed to 
control flooding on that creek, is in severely dilapidated condition. 
The excellent work of the Agriculture Department in the State of New 
Jersey has thus far indicated a willingness of that Department to 
address and solve this problem.
  In order to make it explicit that the Department of Agriculture has 
the authority to provide assistance for the planning and implementation 
of the Repaupo Creek tide gate and dike restoration project, I have 
introduced this amendment. Again, I believe it is an excellent 
preventative measure.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, just to make the record clear, subsection B of the 
amendment would have provided an opportunity for a point of order by 
the Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews) has worked this issue out with Chairman Bonilla. Striking that 
subsection makes the amendment agreeable.
  I would be in a position to recommend the committee accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I also wish to express my thanks to 
Chairman Bonilla and his staff for helping us.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


Amendment No. 57, Amendment No. 58 and Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. 
                                 Thune

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Dakota?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendment No. 57, amendment No. 58 and amendment No. 59 
     offered by Mr. Thune:
       Amendment No. 57: At the end of subtitle B of title II, 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 215. EXPANSION OF PILOT PROGRAM TO ALL STATES.

       Section 1231(h) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3831(h)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and 2002'' and all that 
     follows through ``South Dakota'' and inserting ``through 2011 
     calendar years, the Secretary shall carry out a program in 
     each State'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``--'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``not more than 150,000 acres in any 1 
     State.''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (3) through (5) as paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 58: Add at the end of title IX the following:

     SEC. 932. GAO STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
     study and make findings and recommendations with respect to 
     determining how producer income would be affected by updating 
     yield bases, including--
       (1) whether crop yields have increased over the past 20 
     years for both program crops and oilseeds;
       (2) whether program payments would be disbursed differently 
     in this Act if yield bases were updated;
       (3) what impact this Act's target prices with updated yield 
     bases would have on producer income; and
       (4) what impact lower target prices with updated yield 
     bases would have on producer income compared to this Act.
       (b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report 
     to Congress on the study, findings, and recommendations 
     required by subsection (a), not later than 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 59: At the end, add the following (and make 
     such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

     SEC. 932. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON AGRICULTURAL COMPETITION.

       (a) Appointment.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish an Interagency Task Force on Agricultural 
     Competition (in this section referred to as the ``Task 
     Force'') and, after consultation with the Attorney General, 
     shall appoint as members of the Task Force such employees of 
     the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice 
     as the Secretary considers to be appropriate. The Secretary 
     shall designate 1 member of the Task Force to serve as 
     chairperson of the Task Force.
       (b) Hearings.--The Task Force shall conduct hearings to 
     review the lessening of competition among purchasers of 
     livestock, poultry, and unprocessed agricultural commodities 
     in the United States and shall include in such hearings 
     review of the following matters:
       (1) The enforcement of particular Federal laws relating to 
     competition.
         (2) The concentration and vertical integration of the 
     business operations of such purchasers.
         (3) Discrimination and transparency in prices paid by 
     such purchasers to producers of livestock, poultry, and 
     unprocessed agricultural commodities in the United States.
         (4) The economic protection and bargaining rights of 
     producers who raise livestock and poultry under contracts.
         (5) Marketing innovations and alternatives available to 
     producers of livestock, poultry, and unprocessed agricultural 
     commodities in the United States.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the last member of 
     the Task Force is appointed, the Task Force 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 containing the findings and 
     recommendations of the Task Force for appropriate 
     administrative and legislative action.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, the first amendment that I offer today would 
direct the Comptroller General of the GAO to conduct a study with 
respect to determining how producer income would be affected by 
updating yield bases. The yield base is one part of the equation to 
determining a farmer's assistance payment. Updating yield bases in this 
bill is crucial to the corn farmers of South Dakota. Currently, yield 
bases are taken from yield information from 1981 to 1985. Corn yield 
technology has changed significantly in the past 20 years in South 
Dakota. As a consequence, corn farmers in my State believe that the 
next farm bill should include language that provides for updated yield 
bases to accommodate the vast increase of base yields that producers in 
South Dakota have seen in recent decades.
  The study I am proposing would detail, first, whether crop yields 
have increased over the past 20 years for both program crops and 
oilseeds; second, whether program payments would be disbursed 
differently in this Act if yield bases were updated; third, what impact 
this Act's target prices with updated yield bases would have on 
producer income; and, finally, what impact lower target prices with 
updated yield bases would have on producer income compared to this Act.
  I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that Members support this amendment to 
study how producer income would be affected by updating yield bases.
  The second amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I offer has to do with 
extending the Farmable Wetlands Pilot Program through the life of this 
farm bill. The Farmable Wetlands Pilot Program

[[Page 18790]]

is a six-State voluntary program to restore up to 500,000 acres of 
farmable wetlands and associated buffers by improving the land's 
hydrology and vegetation. Eligible producers in South Dakota, North 
Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana and Nebraska can enroll eligible lands 
in the pilot through the Conservation Reserve Program. The pilot was 
authorized by the fiscal year 2001 Agricultural Appropriations Act.
  Eligible acreage includes farmed and prior converted wetlands that 
have been impacted by farming activities. Eligibility requirements 
include that land must be cropland planted to agriculture commodities 3 
of the 10 most recent crop years and be physically and legally capable 
of being planted in a normal manner to an agricultural commodity; a 
wetland must be five acres or less; a buffer may not exceed the greater 
of three times the size of the wetland or an average of 150 feet on 
either side of the wetland; and participants must agree to restore the 
hydrology of the wetland to the maximum extent possible.
  Producers in my State have had an enthusiastic enrollment thus far 
and have requested that the program be extended through the life of 
this farm bill. While doing so, my amendment also opens the program to 
all States.
  I ask that Members support this amendment to continue the 
effectiveness of the Conservation Reserve Program as it pertains to 
farmable wetlands.
  The third amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I ask be approved directs the 
Secretary of Agriculture to appoint an interagency task force on 
agricultural competition. The task force would review the lessening of 
competition among purchasers of livestock, poultry and unprocessed 
agricultural commodities in the United States by appraising, one, the 
enforcement of particular Federal laws relating to competition; the 
concentration and vertical integration of the business operations of 
such purchasers; discrimination and transparency in prices paid by such 
purchasers to producers of commodities; the economic protection and 
bargaining rights of producers who raise livestock and poultry under 
contracts; and marketing innovations and alterations available to 
producers.
  During my tenure in Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary held a 
hearing at my request on competitiveness in the agriculture and food 
marketing industry. At that hearing and in subsequent conversations 
with other Members of Congress, I proposed that Congress thoroughly 
examine existing antitrust statutes and consider how those statutes are 
being applied and whether agencies and courts are following the laws 
according to congressional intent.
  The very purpose of our antitrust statutes, namely, the Sherman Act 
and the Clayton Act, is to protect our suppliers from anticompetitive 
practices that result from market dominance. There are laws on the 
books that prohibit monopolistic or anticompetitive practices. 
Unfortunately for family farmers, these laws are not preventing such 
activities from occurring.
  For example, the hog industry has consolidated rapidly, with the four 
largest firms' shares of hog slaughter reaching 57 percent in 1998 
compared with 32 percent in 1980. In the cattle sector, the four 
largest beef packers accounted for 79 percent of all cattle slaughtered 
in 1998 compared with 36 percent in 1980. Additionally, four firms 
control nearly 62 percent of flour milling, four firms control 57 
percent of dry corn milling, four firms control 74 percent of wet corn 
milling, and four firms control nearly 80 percent of soybean crushing.
  From 1984 to 1998, consumer food prices increased 3 percent while the 
prices paid to farmers for their products plunged by 36 percent. The 
impact of this price disparity is highlighted by reports of record 
profits among agribusiness firms at the very same time that 
agricultural producers are suffering through an economic crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, with that said, I ask that Members support this 
amendment to create an interagency task force on agricultural 
competition to recommend appropriate administrative and legislative 
action on this very important issue to agriculture across this country.
  I ask that these amendments be approved en bloc.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendments.
  I think the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) should be 
commended for offering these three amendments. All are subjects of 
great concern and interest to my own constituency. As I held my 
agricultural town hall meetings, all of these issues were brought up as 
important issues that should be addressed. The gentleman from South 
Dakota, in offering No. 58, specifically on wetlands, has a major 
impact, as he mentioned, not only on his State, but several States 
including my own. And No. 60, which is an issue directed against the 
lack of competition in the marketing area and in the input area, is 
particularly important to our constituents.
  I think these amendments deserve very strong support.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of that part of the amendment of the 
gentleman from South Dakota which directs the Secretary of Agriculture 
to appoint an interagency task force on agricultural competition.
  Family farmers in Indiana often say they feel squeezed by the growing 
power and size of agribusinesses. They say they have fewer and fewer 
choices on where and with whom to do business. A farmer often has no 
choice but to buy seeds, fertilizer and chemicals from a division of 
the same company that will end up buying the farmer's finished crops at 
harvest. Farmers and ranchers also say that their bargaining power is 
eroding more every day as big changes take place in American 
agriculture.
  As agribusinesses merge and become vertically integrated, America's 
family farmers worry there is no room for them in the future of 
agriculture. It is alarming enough that there are one-third as many 
farms now as there were in the 1930s. There were 7 million farms in the 
United States in the 1930s. Now there are about 2.2 million farms, a 
decline of 70 percent in 70 years. Now farmers fear they are losing 
control of their ability to make regular, routine decisions about their 
own small businesses.
  The facts seem to bear out the concerns of America's farmers and 
ranchers. The five largest beef packers account for about 83 percent of 
the cattle slaughter. The four largest corn exporters control nearly 70 
percent of that market. Just 50 producers market half of all the pigs 
raised in this country.
  Farmers and ranchers are the heart of America's rural communities, 
and they feel they are being ignored by the law. It is time their 
concerns about agribusinesses are addressed. If the big companies are 
engaging in anticompetitive practices, our farmers and ranchers deserve 
to know the facts. And if agribusinesses are doing business fairly, 
farmers and ranchers should know that as well. The interagency task 
force on agricultural competition would review the lessening of 
competition in agriculture and recommend appropriate administrative and 
legislative action.
  For that reason, I ask that Members support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendments offered 
by the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  The amendments were agreed to.


  Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 6 and Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. 
                                Bereuter

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be taken up en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4, amendment No. 6 and amendment No. 7 
     offered by Mr. Bereuter:
       Amendment No. 4: In section 212(a)--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);

[[Page 18791]]

       (2) strike the last period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     insert ``; and''; and
       (3) add at the end the following:
       (3) by adding after and below the end the following flush 
     sentence:

     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence (but subject to 
     subsection (c)), the Secretary may not include in the program 
     established under this subchapter any land that has not been 
     in production for at least 4 years, unless the land is in the 
     program as of the effective date of this sentence.''.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 6: At the end of title IX, insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF AND FUNDING FOR 
                   THE GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to enhance the capability of the Grain Inspection, 
     Packers and Stockyards Administration to monitor, 
     investigate, and pursue the competitive implications of 
     structural changes in the meat packing industry. Sums are 
     specifically earmarked to hire litigating attorneys to allow 
     the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
     to more comprehensively and effectively pursue its 
     enforcement activities.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 7: At the end of title V, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. AUTHORITY TO MAKE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY GUARANTEED 
                   LOANS FOR FARMER-OWNED PROJECTS THAT ADD VALUE 
                   TO OR PROCESS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.

       Section 310B(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(1)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(and in areas other than rural communities, in the case of 
     insured loans, if a majority of the project involved is owned 
     by individuals who reside and have farming operations in 
     rural communities, and the project adds value to or processes 
     agricultural commodities)'' after ``rural communities''.

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment our colleagues from 
Texas, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, 
for their efforts in bringing us important legislation, and one, I 
think, that will be even further improved by a variety of amendments 
that they have agreed to accept. I have three that I offer today at 
this point.
  The first relates to the Conservation Reserve Program. By virtually 
any measure, the CRP has proven to be enormously successful. It is a 
national investment which provides dividends to environmentalists, 
farmers, sportsmen, conservationists, the general public and wildlife. 
The CRP actually dwarfs other conservation and wildlife protection 
efforts. This Member is pleased that it has been reauthorized and 
expanded.
  However, this amendment is offered to close a loophole which was 
brought to this Member's attention at a recent listening session in 
northeast Nebraska. Quite simply, this amendment ensures that the CRP 
be used for its intended purposes. This straightforward amendment 
states that only land which has been in production for 4 consecutive 
years is eligible for the CRP, unless the land is already in the 
program.
  We are finding that a variety of people are using this to buy land 
which they will use for acreage, leaving it in the CRP a short period 
of time. I understand that the staff may work in conference to perfect 
this, if necessary, but I believe it is an important change and closes 
a loophole unintendedly created within the program.

                              {time}  1115

  The second amendment that I offer in No. 6 relates to the Grain 
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards part of the USDA. It is based on 
legislation introduced in the other body by the distinguished gentleman 
from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. Clearly, the issue of concentration in 
agriculture, particularly in the meat packing industry, is a growing 
concern. There is simply too little competition, and Congress should 
work to correct this problem.
  The report issued by the General Accounting Office last year found 
significant shortcomings in the composition of the Grain Inspection, 
Packers and Stockyards Administration's, GIPSA, investigative teams. 
This amendment helps to address these concerns.
  During listening sessions in this Member's district and in other 
meetings, producers have made it clear that the consolidation and 
concentration of firms that sell supplies to farmers and among those 
that buy their crops and livestock is hurting family farm operations. 
This is an issue which is mentioned over and over in a concerted and 
emphatic manner. The support for their views often may be anecdotal, 
but I believe it is a concern so widely and strongly expressed that the 
House Committee on Agriculture and the Congress must not ignore it.
  Mr. Chairman, the third amendment that I offer en bloc, No. 7, 
relates to value-added loans. It enhances the USDA's Rural Business 
Industry Guaranteed Loan Program and promotes value-added products.
  The amendment simply expands the loan program to areas other than 
rural communities if a majority of those individuals involved in the 
project reside and have farming operations in rural communities, and 
the project adds value to or processes agriculture commodities. This 
would remove a stumbling block for worthwhile projects which currently 
are prohibited even though they would benefit our Nation's farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is critically important that Congress assist 
these projects designed to add value to agriculture commodities. 
Producers need to be able to move up the agriculture and food-producing 
and marketing chain in order to capture a larger share of the profits 
generated from processing their raw commodities. This amendment is a 
small, but I think positive, step toward that goal. It removes a 
barrier to receiving a business and industry guaranteed loan, while 
maintaining important safeguards to help ensure that the program is 
used as intended.
  This Member urges his colleagues to support this amendment and the 
other two.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding and 
his agreement to roll these into one vote, therefore conserving some 
time. We certainly looked at the amendment. The gentleman makes some 
very good points. The committee would be in a position to accept the 
amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter).
  The amendments were agreed to.


                Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mrs. Morella

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Morella:
       At the end of title IX, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. ENFORCEMENT OF THE HUMANE METHODS OF SLAUGHTER ACT 
                   OF 1958.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Public demand for passage of Public Law 85-765 (7 
     U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; commonly known as the ``Humane Methods 
     of Slaughter Act of 1958'') was so great that when President 
     Eisenhower was asked at a press conference if he would sign 
     the bill, he replied, ``If I went by mail, I'd think no one 
     was interested in anything but humane slaughter''.
       (2) The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 requires 
     that animals be rendered insensible to pain when they are 
     slaughtered.
       (3) Scientific evidence indicates that treating animals 
     humanely results in tangible economic benefits.
       (4) The United States Animal Health Association passed a 
     resolution at a meeting in October 1998 to encourage strong 
     enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 
     and reiterated support for the resolution at a meeting in 
     2000.
       (5) The Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for fully 
     enforcing the Act, including monitoring compliance by the 
     slaughtering industry.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of Agriculture should fully enforce Public Law 
     85-765 (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; commonly known as the ``Humane 
     Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958'') by ensuring that humane 
     methods in the slaughter of livestock--
       (1) prevent needless suffering;
       (2) result in safer and better working conditions for 
     persons engaged in the slaughtering industry;

[[Page 18792]]

       (3) bring about improvement of products and economies in 
     slaughtering operations; and
       (4) produce other benefits for producers, processors, and 
     consumers that tend to expedite an orderly flow of livestock 
     and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce.
       (c) Policy of the United States.--It is the policy of the 
     United States that the slaughtering of livestock and the 
     handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be 
     carried out only by humane methods, as provided by Public Law 
     85-765 (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; commonly known as the ``Humane 
     Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958'').

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is just a simple sense of 
Congress that reaffirms our support for the Humane Methods of Slaughter 
Act, which has been law since 1958. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) also for letting me speak on this 
noncontroversial amendment at this time.
  This law that we passed in 1958 intends to prevent the needless 
suffering of animals that are slaughtered for food. It states that 
animals must be in a state of complete unconsciousness throughout the 
butchering process, and under no conditions can an animal ever be 
dragged while conscious or disabled. In short, slaughter-bound animals 
are never to be rushed, beaten, or tortured while they are still alive.
  The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act was strengthened in 1978 to 
empower USDA inspectors to stop the slaughter line if they observe any 
cruelty. USDA has the power to enforce humane slaughter regulations. 
The American people expect them to uphold this law, and supporting this 
amendment will demonstrate that Congress continues to believe that 
animals being slaughtered should be treated humanely.
  In addition, this sense of Congress supports the full enforcement of 
existing law by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and 
Inspection Service. Through full cooperation and disclosure, we can 
assure the American people that the meat that they buy was slaughtered 
in a humane way. In the words of Gandhi, ``The greatness of a nation 
and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are 
treated.''
  All we are asking is that we enforce the laws that we made. I 
encourage all Members to support this amendment.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) for 
allowing me to be able to offer this.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
working with us to develop her amendment. This is a very important 
matter that we take very seriously. We appreciate the work that the 
gentlewoman is doing on it. The committee would be in a position to 
accept the amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his leadership and comments.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her 
concern in this area. I join in the support of the chairman for her 
amendment. I thank her for her interest in this.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       At the end of title IX (page 354, after line 16), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 932. PROHIBITION ON INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF ANIMALS FOR 
                   ANIMAL FIGHTING.

       (a) Prohibition on Interstate Movement of Animals for 
     Animal Fighting.--Section 26(d) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2156(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Activities Not Subject to Prohibition.--This section 
     does not apply to the selling, buying, transporting, or 
     delivery of an animal in interstate or foreign commerce for 
     any purpose, so long as the purpose does not include 
     participation of the animal in an animal fighting venture.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

       In the table of contents, after the item relating to 
     section 931 (page 8, before line 1), insert the following new 
     item:
Sec. 932. Prohibition on interstate movement of animals for animal 
              fighting.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment in 
association with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and 
appreciate his leadership and support on this important issue.
  One area of overwhelming consensus on the part of the American public 
is for the protection of animals, and there is an almost universal 
aversion to barbaric sports like dog fighting and cockfighting. We have 
done our job as it relates to dogs. We have not, as it relates to the 
practice of cockfighting. The majority of the American public 
overwhelmingly opposes it, and this House voted to ban its use 25 years 
ago. Yet it still lingers on.
  Male chickens are bred to display traits of hostility. They are 
trained to fight, and then they are armed with pikes or knives to maim 
other roosters. It is calculated to maximize the bloodshed.
  Sadly, we are in today the third century of a struggle to eliminate 
this cruel and barbaric practice. Much progress has in fact been made; 
not here in Congress, but at the State level. It began in the 19th 
century with the State of Massachusetts in 1837, and went on through 
the 1800's with States like Mississippi and Arkansas. Today, 47 States 
have outlawed the practice, and there is strong evidence that the 
citizens of the three remaining States are likewise strongly opposed. 
In all likelihood, there will be another one or two States that will 
outlaw this through their legislatures, and, if not, then by the people 
themselves.
  The purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure that the 
Federal Government is not complicit in aiding and abetting this 
barbaric practice. The Federal Government has no business undermining 
the laws in the 47 States by permitting the transfer of these birds 
across State lines.
  There are a couple of problems with the situation that we face right 
now. In the States where the practice is legal, just the three of them, 
the cockfighting activities, the arenas, the pits, have developed 
around the borders of the State. So like in Texas, people come across 
the border into Oklahoma and engage in the practice. It makes it easy 
for people to undermine the activities in a State like Texas by going 
to Louisiana or to Oklahoma.
  The practice of moving these birds across State lines raises another 
difficult problem, because law enforcement officials have to deal with 
the consequences of what is happening in the other 47 States where it 
is not legal. People who are involved, they claim they are just raising 
and training the birds, not involved in actual cockfighting activities 
itself. But time and time and time again, the practice activities 
degenerate into actual illegal cockfighting activities, and I will not 
take the time now to enter into the Record example after example where 
these activities are taking place. And it is not just the barbaric act 
on the animals themselves that has been outlawed, but there is a great 
deal of illegal gambling; and there are time and time again violent 
acts that are associated with these clandestine activities. That is why 
over 100 law enforcement agencies have urged the enactment of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of this body have recognized that it is time to 
step up and be counted. Last session we had a majority of Members who 
cosponsored legislation, with the lead sponsor being our colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). For some reason, we could not 
bring that legislation forward. This session we have over 200 Members 
who have already cosponsored legislation, but

[[Page 18793]]

somehow it has been left out of this bill.
  I strongly urge that we correct this oversight now. Every major law 
enforcement agency in my State is supporting the measure because it 
will make their job easier while stopping this barbaric practice. I 
suggest that we move to approve this amendment now, to support the 
humane treatment of animals, and support the efforts of our law 
enforcement officials. We do not have to wait for legislation that is 
somehow lingering. We can put it into this bill now.
  We do not allow transportation across State lines of dogs for 
fighting purposes. We should do the same thing as it relates to 
cockfighting. Take the Federal Government out of the business of aiding 
and abetting this 3-century legacy of shame.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know of anyone who is supportive of the 
inhumane treatment of animals, and it is something which obviously 
there are many occasions in which one can point to in which that 
occurs. But the concern that the Committee on Agriculture has is a 
number of unintended consequences that this may have in a more broad-
reaching impact and implication.
  We held a hearing on this issue in September of last year to 
determine the need for the legislation. It was very apparent during 
testimony, we were trying to look at what other implications might be 
brought into it unintentionally; and from questioning many witnesses, 
there are issues and concerns that have not been resolved.
  Among these issues were the effectiveness of the legislative 
proposal, the impact such legislation could have on transportation of 
birds for purposes other than fighting, and the implications for animal 
health programs.
  If the amendment was enacted, someone wishing to get under the 
legislation that the law would create could simply indicate that they 
are not shipping the birds to Oklahoma, but instead they were going to 
the Philippines.
  The amendment would have a chilling effect on transportation of other 
birds. Breeders and exhibitors of fancy birds have testified that 
airlines, shipping companies, et cetera, were not willing or able to 
distinguish between live birds for fighting or those from exhibition, 
kids in 4-H clubs or FFA clubs or others for show purposes that happen 
many times between States.
  Many poultry breeders, including those breeding game birds, 
voluntarily participate in the National Poultry Improvement Program. 
This program is a joint effort between industry, the Federal and State 
officials to establish standards for evaluating poultry breeding stock 
and hatchery products for freedom from hatchery dissemination and egg 
dissemination diseases. The National Poultry Improvement Program's 
mission is to certify all baby chicks, poults and hatching eggs for 
interstate and international movement. Criminalizing interstate 
shipment of game birds may dissuade game breeders from participating in 
the program, which could have certainly some impact on the industry.
  This is a $25 billion-a-year industry. So there are the concerns that 
were raised by people in the business, and I will say people who do not 
engage in game fighting, that I think are very legitimate, that I think 
in fact warrant further discussion and clarification, so that if broad 
blanket of trying to reach a number of folks that I think the 
gentleman's intent is to reach, we do not also encompass many, many 
others who in fact are interested.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in yielding. I have another amendment at the desk that would close this 
loophole for the international transport, not just for fighting birds, 
but also for dogs. We do not permit fighting dogs to be transported 
intrastate.
  Would the gentleman agree that the adoption of the other amendment 
that we have pending would be able to close this loophole for them all?
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does nothing to 
address the issue of concern about those people who are trying to ship 
totally legitimately poultry within the United States; that may be a 
totally legitimate shipment that would not be involved in game fighting 
that would, in fact, come under this. That is the primary concern I 
have.
  The point that I was simply trying to make, and certainly maybe his 
second amendment does address that, relative to whether it is 
intrastate or international, it probably would be addressed by his 
second amendment, but the other concerns that I mention, in fact, would 
not be addressed.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, and I appreciate the 
gentleman's concern, but we have been able to successfully ship dogs 
around the country; they have been able to have dogs for show purposes, 
and they have been outlawed for some 50 years, meaning transport for 
fighting purposes. Why could we not do the same thing, have the same 
protection for poultry that we have for dogs?
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, certainly there is 
probably some merit to what the gentleman said. I think, however, it is 
much more identifiable which dogs potentially are going to be used for 
fighting purposes than there are for game birds.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment. 
It is a narrowly drawn measure that eliminates a one-phrase loophole in 
the Animal Welfare Act. Simply put, it bars the shipment of birds for 
the purpose of fighting. It is clear. It is not ambiguous. I think that 
it cannot be used to do anything but what we are saying it should do.
  Now, I know that if it puts a slight burden on any other aspect of 
the industry, there are people who are going to be opposed to it and, I 
assume, or I suppose that that is proper from their point of view; but 
I think that it is not that much of a burden that it would prevent this 
amendment from being effective, from actually doing what it simply says 
we should do, that these birds should not be shipped across State lines 
for this horrendous purpose. It does not affect the ownership of the 
use of birds for show or the legitimate transport of birds for 
agricultural purposes. It strikes the provision that permits 
transporting birds for the purpose of fighting, the purpose of 
fighting, to States in which cockfighting is legal.
  This particular activity is rampant, in part, because of the Federal 
loophole that allows birds to be transported for this activity. This 
loophole will be closed if this passes and, up to this point, it has 
served to undermine local law enforcement in trying to enforce their 
own State laws against this practice. Illegal and violent activities 
often accompany cockfights, such things as gambling, money laundering, 
assaults, and even more serious, murders. Most of the money made in 
this activity is illegal. Gambling tax evasion is rampant. The activity 
itself of cockfighting is inhumane and barbaric. It is not just a human 
issue, it is a serious law enforcement issue. Over 100 law enforcement 
agencies have endorsed this amendment.
  This is not an attack on a way of life but, rather, an attack on a 
criminal activity and a way to help law enforcement do their own job in 
their own States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Blumenauer-Tancredo 
amendment. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this inhumane 
issue of cockfighting to the floor.
  The amendment seeks to eliminate a one-phrase loophole in the Federal 
Animal Welfare Act by barring any interstate shipment of birds for 
fighting

[[Page 18794]]

purposes. I understand the concerns of the chairman, but I think they 
can be worked out.
  Currently, 47 States have outlawed cockfighting, but a Federal 
loophole allows the shipment of birds from States where cockfighting is 
illegal to any State where it is legal. This loophole is exploited to 
conduct illegal activity around the country.
  I want to stress that this amendment would not affect the ownership 
or use of birds for show purposes or the transport of birds for 
legitimate agricultural purposes. This amendment would protect States' 
rights by removing this loophole which currently undermines the ability 
of State and local law enforcement agencies to enforce their bans on 
animal fighting.
  The amendment has the endorsement, as has been mentioned, of 98 law 
enforcement agencies, 40 newspapers across the country, and also no 
mainstream agricultural organizations have expressed any opposition to 
the legislation.
  Cockfighting is not a sport. Cockfighting promotes illegal gambling 
and animal cruelty. At cockfights, birds are dragged to increase their 
aggression and drugged; they are affixed with knives to their legs, 
placed in a pit; and unable to escape the pit, the birds mutilate each 
other.
  I am sure my colleagues will all agree that fighting dogs for 
entertainment is inhumane and cruel. Surely, cockfighting is inhumane 
and cruel. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, in Texas, cockfighting is illegal, and several law 
enforcement organizations say that prohibiting transport to other 
States will help them crack down on illegal operations. That is our 
law.
  I would like to ask a question of the authors of this amendment, 
though.
  In a situation in which it is legal within a State to have 
cockfighting, under this amendment, if it should pass, would it 
prohibit a raiser of fighting chickens in a State in which it is legal 
to ship to a foreign country in which it is also legal?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, it is not. 
That is why I have a subsequent amendment designated number 9 which I 
will offer that would make it illegal to transport these birds out of 
the United States.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess this is what 
is troubling. Personally, I oppose cockfighting. I mean that is our 
State law, and that is my personal feeling. But I am troubled, as so 
often is the case, when we pass amendments that do that which we all 
want to do, there are unintended consequences. It seems to me that if 
we have a State in which an activity is legal, whether I agree with it 
or not is immaterial, so long as it is constitutional. I am troubled by 
this wording and unintended consequences that might then be interpreted 
in other areas in which none of us can even think about right now.
  But if the gentleman is going to say to a State that has made the 
determination as yet that it is still legal and then we are going to 
begin prosecuting legal activities within a State that ship to another 
country, we are getting into interstate commerce; and I am not sure all 
of this is what the gentleman intends to do.
  I raise this question. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification of 
his intent, but I think it points out that there can be some very, very 
serious unintended consequences. As I say, in Texas we outlawed it a 
long time ago; you cannot do it legally in Texas, and I agree with 
that. I agree with our law enforcement that are having a difficult time 
doing what the gentleman is trying to prohibit, but I also worry about 
the unintended consequences.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern 
about unintended consequences. The issue that the gentleman talks about 
in terms of the export of these animals out of the country, which is 
perfectly legal, is one of those unintended consequences. The reason I 
will be offering another amendment is right now, it is legal to export 
from the United States dogs that are bred for fighting. I do not think 
anybody here agrees with it. It is illegal in the United States to do 
it. It is an unintended consequence.
  What we are attempting to do with this amendment that is before us 
now is to close the unintended consequence in terms of how it moves 
right now across State lines, and amendment No. 9 would close the 
loophole not just for fighting birds, but for dogs which I think no 
Member of this assembly believes we should do, and it was one of the 
unintended consequences of not writing the Animal Welfare law properly 
whenever that was enacted.
  I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and I will be offering an 
amendment to try and correct that.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his clarification. I am not an attorney, but there is something 
that just raised its head regarding constitutionality and individual 
rights, whether we agree with them or not. How many times do we stand 
on this floor and have individuals say, I do not agree with this, but 
the Constitution of the United States provides that it happens. Until 
we change laws, I am troubled by the fact that we here are about to 
supersede our wisdom on another State's interpretation of what is legal 
and illegal. As I said, in Texas, we made the decision. But I think we 
are trying to make a decision for a few other States in which I 
question whether that is something we want to do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Bereuter

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Bereuter:
       At the end of subtitle B of title I (page 66, after line 
     3), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 132. ALTERNATIVE LOAN RATES UNDER FLEXIBLE FALLOW 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Definition of Total Planted Acreage.--In this section, 
     the term ``total planted acreage'' means the cropland acreage 
     of a producer that for the 2000 crop year was--
       (1) planted to a covered commodity;
       (2) prevented from being planted to a covered commodity; or
       (3) fallow as part of a fallow rotation practice with 
     respect to a covered commodity, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Election To Participate.--In lieu of receiving a loan 
     rate under section 122 with respect to production eligible 
     for a loan under section 121, a producer may elect to 
     participate in a flexible fallow program for any of the 2002 
     through 2011 crops under which annually--
       (1) the producer determines which acres of the total 
     planted acreage are assigned to a specific covered commodity;
       (2) the producer determines--
       (A) the projected percentage reduction rate of production 
     of the specific covered commodity based on the acreage 
     assigned to the covered commodity under paragraph (1); and
       (B) the acreage of the total planted acreage of the 
     producer to be set aside under subparagraph (A), regardless 
     of whether the acreage is on the same farm as the acreage 
     planted to the specific covered commodity;
       (3) based on the projected percentage reduction rate of 
     production as a result of the acreage set aside under 
     paragraph (2), the producer receives the loan rate for each 
     covered commodity produced by the producer, as determined 
     under subsection (c); and

[[Page 18795]]

       (4) the acreage planted to covered commodities for harvest 
     and set aside under this section is limited to the total 
     planted acreage of the producer.
       (c) Loan Rates Under Program.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in the 
     case of a producer of a covered commodity that elects to 
     participate in the flexible fallow program under this 
     section, the loan rate for a marketing assistance loan under 
     section 121 for a crop of the covered commodity shall be 
     based on the projected percentage reduction rate of 
     production determined by the producer under subsection 
     (b)(2), in accordance with the following table:
       

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Projected Percentage Reduction                                                                                                     Upland Cotton Loan Rate ($/         Rice Loan Rate ($/
              Rate                Corn Commodity Rate ($/bushel)    Wheat Loan Rate ($/bushel)     Soybean Loan Rate ($/bushel)               pound)                      hundredweight)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         0%                             1.89                            2.75                            4.72                          0.5192                            6.50
                         1%                             1.91                            2.78                            4.77                          0.5268                            6.60
                         2%                             1.93                            2.81                            4.81                          0.5344                            6.70
                         3%                             1.95                            2.83                            4.86                          0.5420                            6.80
                         4%                             1.97                            2.86                            4.91                          0.5496                            6.90
                         5%                             1.99                            2.89                            4.96                          0.5572                            7.00
                         6%                             2.01                            2.92                            5.01                          0.5648                            7.10
                         7%                             2.03                            2.95                            5.06                          0.5724                            7.20
                         8%                             2.05                            2.98                            5.11                          0.5800                            7.30
                         9%                             2.07                            3.01                            5.16                          0.5876                            7.40
                        10%                             2.09                            3.04                            5.21                          0.5952                            7.50
                        11%                             2.12                            3.08                            5.29                          0.6028                            7.60
                        12%                             2.15                            3.13                            5.36                          0.6104                            7.70
                        13%                             2.18                            3.17                            5.43                          0.6180                            7.80
                        14%                             2.21                            3.22                            5.51                          0.6256                            7.90
                        15%                             2.24                            3.27                            5.58                          0.6332                            8.00
                        16%                             2.28                            3.31                            5.65                          0.6408                            8.10
                        17%                             2.31                            3.36                            5.73                          0.6484                            8.20
                        18%                             2.34                            3.41                            5.81                          0.6560                            8.30
                        19%                             2.37                            3.46                            5.88                          0.6636                            8.40
                        20%                             2.41                            3.51                            5.96                          0.6712                            8.50
                        21%                             2.44                            3.55                            6.04                          0.6788                            8.60
                        22%                             2.47                            3.60                            6.12                          0.6864                            8.70
                        23%                             2.51                            3.65                            6.19                          0.6940                            8.80
                        24%                             2.54                            3.70                            6.27                          0.7016                            8.90
                        25%                             2.57                            3.75                            6.35                          0.7092                            9.00
                        26%                             2.61                            3.80                            6.43                          0.7168                            9.10
                        27%                             2.64                            3.85                            6.51                          0.7244                            9.20
                        28%                             2.68                            3.90                            6.60                          0.7320                            9.30
                        29%                             2.71                            3.95                            6.68                          0.7396                            9.40
                        30%                             2.75                            4.01                            6.76                          0.7472                            9.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


       (2) County average yields.--
       (A) In general.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance 
     loan made to a producer for a crop of a covered commodity 
     under paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to the 
     production of the crop of the covered commodity by the 
     producer in a quantity that does not exceed the historical 
     county average yield for the covered commodity established by 
     the National Agricultural Statistics Service, adjusted for 
     long-term yield trends.
       (B) Excess production.--The loan rate for a marketing 
     assistance loan made to a producer for a crop of a covered 
     commodity under paragraph (1) with respect to the production 
     of the crop of the covered commodity in excess of the 
     historical county average yield for the covered commodity 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall be equal to the loan rate 
     established for a 0% projected percentage reduction rate for 
     the covered commodity under paragraph (1).
       (C) Disasters.--
       (i) In general.--If the production of a crop of a covered 
     commodity by a producer is less than the historical county 
     average yield for the covered commodity described in 
     subparagraph (A) as a result of damaging weather, an 
     insurable peril, or related condition, the producer may 
     receive a payment on the lost production that shall equal the 
     difference between--

       (I) the maximum quantity of covered commodity that could 
     have been designated for the loan rate authorized under this 
     section for the producer; and
       (II) the quantity of covered commodity the producer was 
     able to produce and commercially market.

       (ii) Calculation of payment.--The payment described in 
     clause (i) shall be equal to the loan deficiency payment the 
     producer could have received on the lost production on any 
     date, selected by the producer, on which a loan deficiency 
     payment was available for that crop of the covered commodity.
       (3) Other covered commodities.--In the case of a producer 
     of a covered commodity not covered by paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     that elects to participate in the flexible fallow program 
     under this section, the loan rate for a marketing assistance 
     loan under section 121 for the crop of the covered commodity 
     shall be based on--
       (A) in the case of grain sorghum, barley, and oats, such 
     level as the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable in 
     relation to the rate that loans are made available for corn, 
     taking into consideration the feeding value of the commodity 
     in relation to corn;
       (B) in the case of extra long staple cotton, such level as 
     the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable; and
       (C) in the case of oilseeds other than soybeans, such level 
     as the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable in 
     relation to the loan rate available for soybeans, except that 
     the rate for the oilseeds (other than cottonseed) shall not 
     be less than the rate established for soybeans on a per-pound 
     basis for the same crop.
       (d) Conservation Use of Set-Aside Acreage.--To be eligible 
     for a loan rate under this section, a producer shall devote 
     all of the acreage set aside under this section to a 
     conservation use approved by the Secretary and manage the 
     set-aside acreage using management practices designed to 
     enhance soil conservation and wildlife habitat. The Secretary 
     shall prescribe the approved management practices for a 
     county in consultation with the relevant State technical 
     committee.
       (1) Limited Grazing.--The Secretary may permit limited 
     grazing on the set-aside acreage when the grazing is 
     incidental to the gleaning of crop residues on adjacent 
     fields.
       (e) Certification.--To be eligible to participate in the 
     flexible fallow program for any of the 2002 through 2011 
     crops, a producer shall certify to the Secretary (by farm 
     serial number) the total planted acreage assigned, planted, 
     and set aside with respect to each covered commodity.

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is recognized for 5 
minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this important amendment would permit 
farmers to voluntarily set aside a portion of their total crop acreage 
in exchange for higher loan rates on their remaining production.
  This innovative proposal, which goes by the name of Flexible Fallow 
in Farm Country represents an effort to maintain planning flexibility, 
while improving on other areas of our farm policy. As I said, it is a 
voluntary program. It is an annual conservation use feature. It would 
be added to the farm bill's loan rate provisions.
  If a farmer wants to operate under the new farm bill conditions, that 
opportunity remains. If a farmer needs greater leverage over crop 
production and marketing, Flexible Fallow would make that possible. The 
amendment would allow producers to conserve up to 30 percent or set 
aside up to 30 percent of their planted acreage on a crop-by-crop 
basis.
  This approach was suggested during one of the agriculture advisory 
meetings this Member held in his district; and it, in fact, is 
considered in other States. The proposal, I think, has significant 
grass-roots support, because agricultural producers recognize the need 
for change and the need for more options to increase farm revenue.
  Another very important point to stress is that this proposal would 
allow producers to make this decision annually. As a result, the land 
taken out of production would not send a long-term signal to our global 
competitors about

[[Page 18796]]

our future production. It would leave producer countries like Brazil or 
Argentina guessing as to the impact of the collective decision of the 
American farmers who choose to participate in the Flexible Fallow 
program from year to year. They have the capacity to bring substantial 
amounts of land into production in those countries to replace ours in 
export markets, something we certainly should seek to avoid.
  This Flexible Fallow program is a market-responsive proposal. When 
commodity prices are low, farmers could choose to voluntarily conserve 
or set aside more land in exchange for a higher loan rate. As prices 
improve, more land would come back into production.
  In August of 1999, the Food and Agriculture Policy Research 
Institute, FAPRI, released an analysis of the Flexible Fallow program. 
FAPRI is a well-respected, dual-university research program involving 
the University of Missouri-Columbia and Iowa State University and 
joined by a consortium of four other universities.

                              {time}  1145

  Its analysis found that crop farmers' annual net income would 
increase $5.4 million over the 2000 through 2008 period.
  The FAPRI analysis stated, ``Reduced plantings translate into 
stronger crop prices under the Flexible Fallow scenario. The largest 
impacts occur in the 2000 to 2002 period as more producers take 
advantage of the land-idling provisions.''
  The Flexible Fallow Program also promotes conservation. The 
legislation requires the idle land to be devoted to a conservation use. 
Producers would use management practices designed to enhance soil 
conservation and wildlife habitat.
  This Member is aware of the projected costs or estimated costs of 
this program. They are not inconsequential, but I believe that the 
funds made available under this legislation, authorized by it, could be 
better used if part of those funds were shifted over to the Flexible 
Fallow Program.
  That is a matter of choice, a matter of policy. I happen to think 
this is the right way to go and as do many of my farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, American farmers continue to face enormously difficult 
times. Producers continue to struggle with plentiful supplies and low 
prices. While there are no easy answers, there are some steps we can 
take to help farmers. A lot of that is being done here today as part of 
this bill.
  This Flexible Fallow amendment provides one important alternative. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
will state it.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order under 
302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I concede the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded and 
sustained based on estimates provided by the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
if he might know, what would be the administration's position on this 
amendment, were it not out of order because of budget reasons?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, 
I do not know the answer to that.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for that answer.


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       At the end of title IX (page 354, after line 16), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 932. PENALTIES AND FOREIGN COMMERCE PROVISIONS OF THE 
                   ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.

       (a) Penalties and Foreign Commerce Provisions of the Animal 
     Welfare Act.--Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2156) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by inserting ``Penalties.--'' after ``(e)'';
       (B) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$15,000''; and
       (C) by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``2 years''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)(2)(B), by inserting at the end before 
     the semicolon the following: ``or from any State into any 
     foreign country''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

       In the table of contents, after the item relating to 
     section 931 (page 8, before line 1), insert the following new 
     item:

Sec. 932. Penalties and foreign commerce provisions of the Animal 
              Welfare Act.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I did want to follow up on the 
important points raised by the chairman and the ranking member dealing 
with unintended consequences and other issues that we have in terms of 
dealing with activities of animals for fighting purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to deal with the concerns, 
legitimate concerns, that have been raised. It would close a loophole 
in the Animal Welfare Act that allows for the shipment of fighting dogs 
or birds from the United States to foreign countries, and it increases 
the penalties for promoting illegal animal fighting venues.
  Mr. Chairman, the current penalties are 25 years old and are in dire 
need of update. It increases the maximum penalties from 1 year and a 
$5,000 fine to 2 years and a $15,000.
  For comparison, Mr. Chairman, the Federal law passed last year 
prohibiting animal crush videos provided for maximum penalties of 5 
years and $250,000 fine; and in most States there are provisions for a 
maximum of 5 years imprisonment for animal fighting, with some States' 
penalties as high as 10 years or $100,000.
  With higher penalties, U.S. Attorneys are more likely to prosecute 
animal fighting violations. When the Federal anti-animal fighting law 
was enacted in 1976, no State made animal fighting a felony. Today, 46 
States have felony provisions for animal fighting. We must increase our 
quarter-century-old Federal penalties to make them work in today's 
climate.
  Closing the foreign commerce loophole is equally important. I 
appreciate my colleague's pointing it out. In 1976, Congress added a 
section to the Animal Welfare Act, section 26, to crack down on 
dogfighting and cockfighting; but it did not, however, ban shipment of 
dogs or birds from the United States to foreign countries. This 
loophole allows shipment of fighting birds to foreign countries that 
provides a smoke screen behind which illegal cockfighters operate here.
  Ironically, Mr. Chairman, the United States prohibits the importing 
of animals for fighting but still allows the exports of this animal; a 
practice I believe may well violate international trade rules.
  It is also important to note that the provisions of this amendment 
apply to the practice of dogfighting. As I mentioned previously, this 
is illegal in all 50 States. The same dire activities to breed the 
animals for aggressive characteristics, train them, and then place them 
in a pit to fight, to injure, or die applies as it does to 
cockfighting. We must not allow these dogs to be bred in the United 
States for shipment abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, cockfighters rear birds for aggressive behavior. We 
have had the same thing in terms of what happens to the dogs. These 
practices are a major underground industry. It is time to close all 
possible loopholes, increase the penalties, and ban shipments of 
fighting dogs and birds to foreign countries.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered

[[Page 18797]]

by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Sherwood

  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 49 offered by Mr. Sherwood:
       At the end of chapter 1 of subtitle C of title I (page 75, 
     after line 17), insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 147. NORTHEAST INTERSTATE DAIRY COMPACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 147 of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7256) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``States'' and all that follows through ``Vermont'' and 
     inserting ``States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
     Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 
     Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont'';
       (2) by striking paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (7);
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1) and, in 
     such paragraph, by striking ``Class III-A'' and inserting 
     ``Class IV'';
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (1), as so redesignated, 
     the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Compensation of special milk program.--Before the end 
     of each fiscal year in which a Compact price regulation is in 
     effect, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission 
     shall compensate the Secretary for the increased cost of any 
     milk and milk products provided under the special milk 
     program established under section 3 of the Child Nutrition 
     Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772) that results from the operation 
     of the Compact price regulation during the fiscal year, as 
     determined by the Secretary (in consultation with the 
     Commission) using notice and comment procedures provided in 
     section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(3) Additional state.--Ohio is the only additional State 
     that may join the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.'';
       (5) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4) and, in 
     such paragraph, by striking ``the projected rate of 
     increase'' and all that follows through ``Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``the operation of the Compact price regulation 
     during the fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary (in 
     consultation with the Commission) using notice and comment 
     procedures provided in section 553 of title 5, United States 
     Code''; and
       (6) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     take effect as of September 30, 2001.

     SEC. 148. SOUTHERN DAIRY COMPACT.

       (a) In General.--Congress consents to the Southern Dairy 
     Compact entered into among the States of Alabama, Arkansas, 
     Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, 
     North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
     Virginia, and West Virginia, subject to the following 
     conditions:
       (1) Limitation of manufacturing price regulation.--The 
     Southern Dairy Compact Commission may not regulate Class II, 
     Class III, or Class IV milk used for manufacturing purposes 
     or any other milk, other than Class I, or fluid milk, as 
     defined by a Federal milk marketing order issued under 
     section 8c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
     608c), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1937 (referred to in this section as a 
     ``Federal milk marketing order'') unless Congress has first 
     consented to and approved such authority by a law enacted 
     after the date of enactment of this joint resolution.
       (2) Compensation of special milk program.--Before the end 
     of each fiscal year in which a Compact price regulation is in 
     effect, the Southern Dairy Compact Commission shall 
     compensate the Secretary of Agriculture for the increased 
     cost of any milk and milk products provided under the special 
     milk program established under section 3 of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772) that results from the 
     operation of the Compact price regulation during the fiscal 
     year, as determined by the Secretary (in consultation with 
     the Commission) using notice and comment procedures provided 
     in section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
       (3) Additional states.--Florida, Nebraska, and Texas are 
     the only additional States that may join the Southern Dairy 
     Compact, individually or otherwise.
       (4) Compensation of commodity credit corporation.--Before 
     the end of each fiscal year in which a Compact price 
     regulation is in effect, the Southern Dairy Compact 
     Commission shall compensate the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     for the cost of any purchases of milk and milk products by 
     the Corporation that result from the operation of the Compact 
     price regulation during the fiscal year, as determined by the 
     Secretary (in consultation with the Commission) using notice 
     and comment procedures provided in section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (5) Milk marketing order administrator.--At the request of 
     the Southern Dairy Compact Commission, the Administrator of 
     the applicable Federal milk marketing order shall provide 
     technical assistance to the Compact Commission and be 
     compensated for that assistance.
       (b) Compact.--The Southern Dairy Compact is substantially 
     as follows:

 ``ARTICLE I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY

     ``Sec. 1. Statement of purpose, findings and declaration of 
       policy

       ``The purpose of this compact is to recognize the 
     interstate character of the southern dairy industry and the 
     prerogative of the states under the United States 
     Constitution to form an interstate commission for the 
     southern region. The mission of the commission is to take 
     such steps as are necessary to assure the continued viability 
     of dairy farming in the south, and to assure consumers of an 
     adequate, local supply of pure and wholesome milk.
       ``The participating states find and declare that the dairy 
     industry is an essential agricultural activity of the south. 
     Dairy farms, and associated suppliers, marketers, processors 
     and retailers are an integral component of the region's 
     economy. Their ability to provide a stable, local supply of 
     pure, wholesome milk is a matter of great importance to the 
     health and welfare of the region.
       ``The participating states further find that dairy farms 
     are essential and they are an integral part of the region's 
     rural communities. The farms preserve land for agricultural 
     purposes and provide needed economic stimuli for rural 
     communities.
       ``In establishing their constitutional regulatory authority 
     over the region's fluid milk market by this compact, the 
     participating states declare their purpose that this compact 
     neither displace the federal order system nor encourage the 
     merging of federal orders. Specific provisions of the compact 
     itself set forth this basic principle.
       ``Designed as a flexible mechanism able to adjust to 
     changes in a regulated marketplace, the compact also contains 
     a contingency provision should the federal order system be 
     discontinued. In that event, the interstate commission is 
     authorized to regulate the marketplace in replacement of the 
     order system. This contingent authority does not anticipate 
     such a change, however, and should not be so construed. It is 
     only provided should developments in the market other than 
     establishment of this compact result in discontinuance of the 
     order system.
       ``By entering into this compact, the participating states 
     affirm that their ability to regulate the price which 
     southern dairy farmers receive for their product is essential 
     to the public interest. Assurance of a fair and equitable 
     price for dairy farmers ensures their ability to provide milk 
     to the market and the vitality of the southern dairy 
     industry, with all the associated benefits.
       ``Recent, dramatic price fluctuations, with a pronounced 
     downward trend, threaten the viability and stability of the 
     southern dairy region. Historically, individual state 
     regulatory action had been an effective emergency remedy 
     available to farmers confronting a distressed market. The 
     federal order system, implemented by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, establishes only minimum 
     prices paid to producers for raw milk, without preempting the 
     power of states to regulate milk prices above the minimum 
     levels so established.
       ``In today's regional dairy marketplace, cooperative, 
     rather than individual state action is needed to more 
     effectively address the market disarray. Under our 
     constitutional system, properly authorized states acting 
     cooperatively may exercise more power to regulate interstate 
     commerce than they may assert individually without such 
     authority. For this reason, the participating states invoke 
     their authority to act in common agreement, with the consent 
     of Congress, under the compact clause of the Constitution.

          ``ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

     ``Sec. 2. Definitions

       ``For the purposes of this compact, and of any supplemental 
     or concurring legislation enacted pursuant thereto, except as 
     may be otherwise required by the context:
       ``(1) `Class I milk' means milk disposed of in fluid form 
     or as a fluid milk product, subject to further definition in 
     accordance with the principles expressed in subdivision (b) 
     of section three.
       ``(2) `Commission' means the Southern Dairy Compact 
     Commission established by this compact.
       ``(3) `Commission marketing order' means regulations 
     adopted by the commission pursuant to sections nine and ten 
     of this compact in place of a terminated federal marketing 
     order or state dairy regulation. Such order may apply 
     throughout the region or in any part or parts thereof as 
     defined in the regulations of the commission. Such order may 
     establish minimum prices for any or all classes of milk.
       ``(4) `Compact' means this interstate compact.
       ``(5) `Compact over-order price' means a minimum price 
     required to be paid to producers for Class I milk established 
     by the commission in regulations adopted pursuant to sections 
     nine and ten of this compact, which is above the price 
     established in federal marketing orders or by state farm 
     price

[[Page 18798]]

     regulations in the regulated area. Such price may apply 
     throughout the region or in any part or parts thereof as 
     defined in the regulations of the commission.
       ``(6) `Milk' means the lacteral secretion of cows and 
     includes all skim, butterfat, or other constituents obtained 
     from separation or any other process. The term is used in its 
     broadest sense and may be further defined by the commission 
     for regulatory purposes.
       ``(7) `Partially regulated plant' means a milk plant not 
     located in a regulated area but having Class I distribution 
     within such area. Commission regulations may exempt plants 
     having such distribution or receipts in amounts less than the 
     limits defined therein.
       ``(8) `Participating state' means a state which has become 
     a party to this compact by the enactment of concurring 
     legislation.
       ``(9) `Pool plant' means any milk plant located in a 
     regulated area.
       ``(10) `Region' means the territorial limits of the states 
     which are parties to this compact.
       ``(11) `Regulated area' means any area within the region 
     governed by and defined in regulations establishing a compact 
     over-order price or commission marketing order.
       ``(12) `State dairy regulation' means any state regulation 
     of dairy prices, and associated assessments, whether by 
     statute, marketing order or otherwise.

     ``Sec. 3. Rules of construction

       ``(a) This compact shall not be construed to displace 
     existing federal milk marketing orders or state dairy 
     regulation in the region but to supplement them. In the event 
     some or all federal orders in the region are discontinued, 
     the compact shall be construed to provide the commission the 
     option to replace them with one or more commission marketing 
     orders pursuant to this compact.
       ``(b) The compact shall be construed liberally in order to 
     achieve the purposes and intent enunciated in section one. It 
     is the intent of this compact to establish a basic structure 
     by which the commission may achieve those purposes through 
     the application, adaptation and development of the regulatory 
     techniques historically associated with milk marketing and to 
     afford the commission broad flexibility to devise regulatory 
     mechanisms to achieve the purposes of this compact. In 
     accordance with this intent, the technical terms which are 
     associated with market order regulation and which have 
     acquired commonly understood general meanings are not defined 
     herein but the commission may further define the terms used 
     in this compact and develop additional concepts and define 
     additional terms as it may find appropriate to achieve its 
     purposes.

                 ``ARTICLE III. COMMISSION ESTABLISHED

     ``Sec. 4. Commission established

       ``There is hereby created a commission to administer the 
     compact, composed of delegations from each state in the 
     region. The commission shall be known as the Southern Dairy 
     Compact Commission. A delegation shall include not less than 
     three nor more than five persons. Each delegation shall 
     include at least one dairy farmer who is engaged in the 
     production of milk at the time of appointment or 
     reappointment, and one consumer representative. Delegation 
     members shall be residents and voters of, and subject to such 
     confirmation process as is provided for in the appointing 
     state. Delegation members shall serve no more than three 
     consecutive terms with no single term of more than four 
     years, and be subject to removal for cause. In all other 
     respects, delegation members shall serve in accordance with 
     the laws of the state represented. The compensation, if any, 
     of the members of a state delegation shall be determined and 
     paid by each state, but their expenses shall be paid by the 
     commission.

     ``Sec. 5. Voting requirements

       ``All actions taken by the commission, except for the 
     establishment or termination of an over-order price or 
     commission marketing order, and the adoption, amendment or 
     rescission of the commission's by-laws, shall be by majority 
     vote of the delegations present. Each state delegation shall 
     be entitled to one vote in the conduct of the commission's 
     affairs. Establishment or termination of an over-order price 
     or commission marketing order shall require at least a two-
     thirds vote of the delegations present. The establishment of 
     a regulated area which covers all or part of a participating 
     state shall require also the affirmative vote of that state's 
     delegation. A majority of the delegations from the 
     participating states shall constitute a quorum for the 
     conduct of the commission's business.

     ``Sec. 6. Administration and management

       ``(a) The commission shall elect annually from among the 
     members of the participating state delegations a chairperson, 
     a vice-chairperson, and a treasurer. The commission shall 
     appoint an executive director and fix his or her duties and 
     compensation. The executive director shall serve at the 
     pleasure of the commission, and together with the treasurer, 
     shall be bonded in an amount determined by the commission. 
     The commission may establish through its by-laws an executive 
     committee composed of one member elected by each delegation.
       ``(b) The commission shall adopt by-laws for the conduct of 
     its business by a two-thirds vote, and shall have the power 
     by the same vote to amend and rescind these by-laws. The 
     commission shall publish its by-laws in convenient form with 
     the appropriate agency or officer in each of the 
     participating states. The by-laws shall provide for 
     appropriate notice to the delegations of all commission 
     meetings and hearings and of the business to be transacted at 
     such meetings or hearings. Notice also shall be given to 
     other agencies or officers of participating states as 
     provided by the laws of those states.
       ``(c) The commission shall file an annual report with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, and with each 
     of the participating states by submitting copies to the 
     governor, both houses of the legislature, and the head of the 
     state department having responsibilities for agriculture.
       ``(d) In addition to the powers and duties elsewhere 
     prescribed in this compact, the commission shall have the 
     power:
       ``(1) To sue and be sued in any state or federal court;
       ``(2) To have a seal and alter the same at pleasure;
       ``(3) To acquire, hold, and dispose of real and personal 
     property by gift, purchase, lease, license, or other similar 
     manner, for its corporate purposes;
       ``(4) To borrow money and issue notes, to provide for the 
     rights of the holders thereof and to pledge the revenue of 
     the commission as security therefor, subject to the 
     provisions of section eighteen of this compact;
       ``(5) To appoint such officers, agents, and employees as it 
     may deem necessary, prescribe their powers, duties and 
     qualifications; and
       ``(6) To create and abolish such offices, employments and 
     positions as it deems necessary for the purposes of the 
     compact and provide for the removal, term, tenure, 
     compensation, fringe benefits, pension, and retirement rights 
     of its officers and employees. The commission may also retain 
     personal services on a contract basis.

     ``Sec. 7. Rulemaking power

       ``In addition to the power to promulgate a compact over-
     order price or commission marketing orders as provided by 
     this compact, the commission is further empowered to make and 
     enforce such additional rules and regulations as it deems 
     necessary to implement any provisions of this compact, or to 
     effectuate in any other respect the purposes of this compact.

                 ``ARTICLE IV. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION

     ``Sec. 8. Powers to promote regulatory uniformity, 
       simplicity, and interstate cooperation

       ``The commission is hereby empowered to:
       ``(1) Investigate or provide for investigations or research 
     projects designed to review the existing laws and regulations 
     of the participating states, to consider their administration 
     and costs, to measure their impact on the production and 
     marketing of milk and their effects on the shipment of milk 
     and milk products within the region.
       ``(2) Study and recommend to the participating states joint 
     or cooperative programs for the administration of the dairy 
     marketing laws and regulations and to prepare estimates of 
     cost savings and benefits of such programs.
       ``(3) Encourage the harmonious relationships between the 
     various elements in the industry for the solution of their 
     material problems. Conduct symposia or conferences designed 
     to improve industry relations, or a better understanding of 
     problems.
       ``(4) Prepare and release periodic reports on activities 
     and results of the commission's efforts to the participating 
     states.
       ``(5) Review the existing marketing system for milk and 
     milk products and recommend changes in the existing structure 
     for assembly and distribution of milk which may assist, 
     improve or promote more efficient assembly and distribution 
     of milk.
       ``(6) Investigate costs and charges for producing, hauling, 
     handling, processing, distributing, selling and for all other 
     services performed with respect to milk.
       ``(7) Examine current economic forces affecting producers, 
     probable trends in production and consumption, the level of 
     dairy farm prices in relation to costs, the financial 
     conditions of dairy farmers, and the need for an emergency 
     order to relieve critical conditions on dairy farms.

     ``Sec. 9. Equitable farm prices

       ``(a) The powers granted in this section and section ten 
     shall apply only to the establishment of a compact over-order 
     price, so long as federal milk marketing orders remain in 
     effect in the region. In the event that any or all such 
     orders are terminated, this article shall authorize the 
     commission to establish one or more commission marketing 
     orders, as herein provided, in the region or parts thereof as 
     defined in the order.
       ``(b) A compact over-order price established pursuant to 
     this section shall apply only to Class I milk. Such compact 
     over-order price shall not exceed one dollar and fifty cents 
     per gallon at Atlanta, Ga., however, this compact over-order 
     price shall be adjusted upward or downward at other locations 
     in the region to reflect differences in minimum federal order 
     prices. Beginning in nineteen hundred ninety, and using that 
     year

[[Page 18799]]

     as a base, the foregoing one dollar fifty cents per gallon 
     maximum shall be adjusted annually by the rate of change in 
     the Consumer Price Index as reported by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. For 
     purposes of the pooling and equalization of an over-order 
     price, the value of milk used in other use classifications 
     shall be calculated at the appropriate class price 
     established pursuant to the applicable federal order or state 
     dairy regulation and the value of unregulated milk shall be 
     calculated in relation to the nearest prevailing class price 
     in accordance with and subject to such adjustments as the 
     commission may prescribe in regulations.
       ``(c) A commission marketing order shall apply to all 
     classes and uses of milk.
       ``(d) The commission is hereby empowered to establish a 
     compact over-order price for milk to be paid by pool plants 
     and partially regulated plants. The commission is also 
     empowered to establish a compact over-order price to be paid 
     by all other handlers receiving milk from producers located 
     in a regulated area. This price shall be established either 
     as a compact over-order price or by one or more commission 
     marketing orders. Whenever such a price has been established 
     by either type of regulation, the legal obligation to pay 
     such price shall be determined solely by the terms and 
     purpose of the regulation without regard to the situs of the 
     transfer of title, possession or any other factors not 
     related to the purposes of the regulation and this compact. 
     Producer-handlers as defined in an applicable federal market 
     order shall not be subject to a compact over-order price. The 
     commission shall provide for similar treatment of producer-
     handlers under commission marketing orders.
       ``(e) In determining the price, the commission shall 
     consider the balance between production and consumption of 
     milk and milk products in the regulated area, the costs of 
     production including, but not limited to the price of feed, 
     the cost of labor including the reasonable value of the 
     producer's own labor and management, machinery expense, and 
     interest expense, the prevailing price for milk outside the 
     regulated area, the purchasing power of the public and the 
     price necessary to yield a reasonable return to the producer 
     and distributor.
       ``(f) When establishing a compact over-order price, the 
     commission shall take such other action as is necessary and 
     feasible to help ensure that the over-order price does not 
     cause or compensate producers so as to generate local 
     production of milk in excess of those quantities necessary to 
     assure consumers of an adequate supply for fluid purposes.
       ``(g) The commission shall whenever possible enter into 
     agreements with state or federal agencies for exchange of 
     information or services for the purpose of reducing 
     regulatory burden and cost of administering the compact. The 
     commission may reimburse other agencies for the reasonable 
     cost of providing these services.

     ``Sec. 10. Optional provisions for pricing order

       ``Regulations establishing a compact over-order price or a 
     commission marketing order may contain, but shall not be 
     limited to any of the following:
       ``(1) Provisions classifying milk in accordance with the 
     form in which or purpose for which it is used, or creating a 
     flat pricing program.
       ``(2) With respect to a commission marketing order only, 
     provisions establishing or providing a method for 
     establishing separate minimum prices for each use 
     classification prescribed by the commission, or a single 
     minimum price for milk purchased from producers or 
     associations of producers.
       ``(3) With respect to an over-order minimum price, 
     provisions establishing or providing a method for 
     establishing such minimum price for Class I milk.
       ``(4) Provisions for establishing either an over-order 
     price or a commission marketing order may make use of any 
     reasonable method for establishing such price or prices 
     including flat pricing and formula pricing. Provision may 
     also be made for location adjustments, zone differentials and 
     for competitive credits with respect to regulated handlers 
     who market outside the regulated area.
       ``(5) Provisions for the payment to all producers and 
     associations of producers delivering milk to all handlers of 
     uniform prices for all milk so delivered, irrespective of the 
     uses made of such milk by the individual handler to whom it 
     is delivered, or for the payment of producers delivering milk 
     to the same handler of uniform prices for all milk delivered 
     by them.
       ``(A) With respect to regulations establishing a compact 
     over-order price, the commission may establish one 
     equalization pool within the regulated area for the sole 
     purpose of equalizing returns to producers throughout the 
     regulated area.
       ``(B) With respect to any commission marketing order, as 
     defined in section two, subdivision three, which replaces one 
     or more terminated federal orders or state dairy regulations, 
     the marketing area of now separate state or federal orders 
     shall not be merged without the affirmative consent of each 
     state, voting through its delegation, which is partly or 
     wholly included within any such new marketing area.
       ``(6) Provisions requiring persons who bring Class I milk 
     into the regulated area to make compensatory payments with 
     respect to all such milk to the extent necessary to equalize 
     the cost of milk purchased by handlers subject to a compact 
     over-order price or commission marketing order. No such 
     provisions shall discriminate against milk producers outside 
     the regulated area. The provisions for compensatory payments 
     may require payment of the difference between the Class I 
     price required to be paid for such milk in the state of 
     production by a federal milk marketing order or state dairy 
     regulation and the Class I price established by the compact 
     over-order price or commission marketing order.
       ``(7) Provisions specially governing the pricing and 
     pooling of milk handled by partially regulated plants.
       ``(8) Provisions requiring that the account of any person 
     regulated under the compact over-order price shall be 
     adjusted for any payments made to or received by such persons 
     with respect to a producer settlement fund of any federal or 
     state milk marketing order or other state dairy regulation 
     within the regulated area.
       ``(9) Provision requiring the payment by handlers of an 
     assessment to cover the costs of the administration and 
     enforcement of such order pursuant to Article VII, Section 
     18(a).
       ``(10) Provisions for reimbursement to participants of the 
     Women, Infants and Children Special Supplemental Food Program 
     of the United States Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
       ``(11) Other provisions and requirements as the commission 
     may find are necessary or appropriate to effectuate the 
     purposes of this compact and to provide for the payment of 
     fair and equitable minimum prices to producers.

                   ``ARTICLE V. RULEMAKING PROCEDURE

     ``Sec. 11. Rulemaking procedure

       ``Before promulgation of any regulations establishing a 
     compact over-order price or commission marketing order, 
     including any provision with respect to milk supply under 
     subsection 9(f), or amendment thereof, as provided in Article 
     IV, the commission shall conduct an informal rulemaking 
     proceeding to provide interested persons with an opportunity 
     to present data and views. Such rulemaking proceeding shall 
     be governed by section four of the Federal Administrative 
     Procedure Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Sec. 553). In addition, 
     the commission shall, to the extent practicable, publish 
     notice of rulemaking proceedings in the official register of 
     each participating state. Before the initial adoption of 
     regulations establishing a compact over-order price or a 
     commission marketing order and thereafter before any 
     amendment with regard to prices or assessments, the 
     commission shall hold a public hearing. The commission may 
     commence a rulemaking proceeding on its own initiative or may 
     in its sole discretion act upon the petition of any person 
     including individual milk producers, any organization of milk 
     producers or handlers, general farm organizations, consumer 
     or public interest groups, and local, state or federal 
     officials.

     ``Sec. 12. Findings and referendum

       ``(a) In addition to the concise general statement of basis 
     and purpose required by section 4(b) of the Federal 
     Administrative Procedure Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 553(c)), the commission shall make findings of fact with 
     respect to:
       ``(1) Whether the public interest will be served by the 
     establishment of minimum milk prices to dairy farmers under 
     Article IV.
       ``(2) What level of prices will assure that producers 
     receive a price sufficient to cover their costs of production 
     and will elicit an adequate supply of milk for the 
     inhabitants of the regulated area and for manufacturing 
     purposes.
       ``(3) Whether the major provisions of the order, other than 
     those fixing minimum milk prices, are in the public interest 
     and are reasonably designed to achieve the purposes of the 
     order.
       ``(4) Whether the terms of the proposed regional order or 
     amendment are approved by producers as provided in section 
     thirteen.

     ``Sec. 13. Producer referendum

       ``(a) For the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance 
     or amendment of regulations establishing a compact over-order 
     price or a commission marketing order, including any 
     provision with respect to milk supply under subsection 9(f), 
     is approved by producers, the commission shall conduct a 
     referendum among producers. The referendum shall be held in a 
     timely manner, as determined by regulation of the commission. 
     The terms and conditions of the proposed order or amendment 
     shall be described by the commission in the ballot used in 
     the conduct of the referendum, but the nature, content, or 
     extent of such description shall not be a basis for attacking 
     the legality of the order or any action relating thereto.
       ``(b) An order or amendment shall be deemed approved by 
     producers if the commission determines that it is approved by 
     at least two-thirds of the voting producers who, during a 
     representative period determined by the commission, have been 
     engaged in the production of milk the price of which would be 
     regulated under the proposed order or amendment.

[[Page 18800]]

       ``(c) For purposes of any referendum, the commission shall 
     consider the approval or disapproval by any cooperative 
     association of producers, qualified under the provisions of 
     the Act of Congress of February 18, 1922, as amended, known 
     as the Capper-Volstead Act, bona fide engaged in marketing 
     milk, or in rendering services for or advancing the interests 
     of producers of such commodity, as the approval or 
     disapproval of the producers who are members or stockholders 
     in, or under contract with, such cooperative association of 
     producers, except as provided in subdivision (1) hereof and 
     subject to the provisions of subdivision (2) through (5) 
     hereof.
       ``(1) No cooperative which has been formed to act as a 
     common marketing agency for both cooperatives and individual 
     producers shall be qualified to block vote for either.
       ``(2) Any cooperative which is qualified to block vote 
     shall, before submitting its approval or disapproval in any 
     referendum, give prior written notice to each of its members 
     as to whether and how it intends to cast its vote. The notice 
     shall be given in a timely manner as established, and in the 
     form prescribed, by the commission.
       ``(3) Any producer may obtain a ballot from the commission 
     in order to register approval or disapproval of the proposed 
     order.
       ``(4) A producer who is a member of a cooperative which has 
     provided notice of its intent to approve or not to approve a 
     proposed order, and who obtains a ballot and with such ballot 
     expresses his approval or disapproval of the proposed order, 
     shall notify the commission as to the name of the cooperative 
     of which he or she is a member, and the commission shall 
     remove such producer's name from the list certified by such 
     cooperative with its corporate vote.
       ``(5) In order to insure that all milk producers are 
     informed regarding the proposed order, the commission shall 
     notify all milk producers that an order is being considered 
     and that each producer may register his approval or 
     disapproval with the commission either directly or through 
     his or her cooperative.

     ``Sec. 14. Termination of over-order price or marketing order

       ``(a) The commission shall terminate any regulations 
     establishing an over-order price or commission marketing 
     order issued under this article whenever it finds that such 
     order or price obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the 
     declared policy of this compact.
       ``(b) The commission shall terminate any regulations 
     establishing an over-order price or a commission marketing 
     order issued under this article whenever it finds that such 
     termination is favored by a majority of the producers who, 
     during a representative period determined by the commission, 
     have been engaged in the production of milk the price of 
     which is regulated by such order; but such termination shall 
     be effective only if announced on or before such date as may 
     be specified in such marketing agreement or order.
       ``(c) The termination or suspension of any order or 
     provision thereof, shall not be considered an order within 
     the meaning of this article and shall require no hearing, but 
     shall comply with the requirements for informal rulemaking 
     prescribed by section four of the Federal Administrative 
     Procedure Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Sec. 553).

                       ``ARTICLE VI. ENFORCEMENT

     ``Sec. 15. Records; reports; access to premises

       ``(a) The commission may by rule and regulation prescribe 
     record keeping and reporting requirements for all regulated 
     persons. For purposes of the administration and enforcement 
     of this compact, the commission is authorized to examine the 
     books and records of any regulated person relating to his or 
     her milk business and for that purpose, the commission's 
     properly designated officers, employees, or agents shall have 
     full access during normal business hours to the premises and 
     records of all regulated persons.
       ``(b) Information furnished to or acquired by the 
     commission officers, employees, or its agents pursuant to 
     this section shall be confidential and not subject to 
     disclosure except to the extent that the commission deems 
     disclosure to be necessary in any administrative or judicial 
     proceeding involving the administration or enforcement of 
     this compact, an over-order price, a compact marketing order, 
     or other regulations of the commission. The commission may 
     promulgate regulations further defining the confidentiality 
     of information pursuant to this section. Nothing in this 
     section shall be deemed to prohibit (i) the issuance of 
     general statements based upon the reports of a number of 
     handlers, which do not identify the information furnished by 
     any person, or (ii) the publication by direction of the 
     commission of the name of any person violating any regulation 
     of the commission, together with a statement of the 
     particular provisions violated by such person.
       ``(c) No officer, employee, or agent of the commission 
     shall intentionally disclose information, by inference or 
     otherwise, which is made confidential pursuant to this 
     section. Any person violating the provisions of this section 
     shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than 
     one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for not more than one 
     year, or to both, and shall be removed from office. The 
     commission shall refer any allegation of a violation of this 
     section to the appropriate state enforcement authority or 
     United States Attorney.

     ``Sec. 16. Subpoena; hearings and judicial review

       ``(a) The commission is hereby authorized and empowered by 
     its members and its properly designated officers to 
     administer oaths and issue subpoenas throughout all signatory 
     states to compel the attendance of witnesses and the giving 
     of testimony and the production of other evidence.
       ``(b) Any handler subject to an order may file a written 
     petition with the commission stating that any such order or 
     any provision of any such order or any obligation imposed in 
     connection therewith is not in accordance with law and 
     praying for a modification thereof or to be exempted 
     therefrom. He shall thereupon be given an opportunity for a 
     hearing upon such petition, in accordance with regulations 
     made by the commission. After such hearing, the commission 
     shall make a ruling upon the prayer of such petition which 
     shall be final, if in accordance with law.
       ``(c) The district courts of the United States in any 
     district in which such handler is an inhabitant, or has his 
     principal place of business, are hereby vested with 
     jurisdiction to review such ruling, provided a complaint for 
     that purpose is filed within thirty days from the date of the 
     entry of such ruling. Service of process in such proceedings 
     may be had upon the commission by delivering to it a copy of 
     the complaint. If the court determines that such ruling is 
     not in accordance with law, it shall remand such proceedings 
     to the commission with directions either (1) to make such 
     ruling as the court shall determine to be in accordance with 
     law, or (2) to take such further proceedings as, in its 
     opinion, the law requires. The pendency of proceedings 
     instituted pursuant to this subdivision shall not impede, 
     hinder, or delay the commission from obtaining relief 
     pursuant to section seventeen. Any proceedings brought 
     pursuant to section seventeen, except where brought by way of 
     counterclaim in proceedings instituted pursuant to this 
     section, shall abate whenever a final decree has been 
     rendered in proceedings between the same parties, and 
     covering the same subject matter, instituted pursuant to this 
     section.

     ``Sec. 17. Enforcement with respect to handlers

       ``(a) Any violation by a handler of the provisions of 
     regulations establishing an over-order price or a commission 
     marketing order, or other regulations adopted pursuant to 
     this compact shall:
       ``(1) Constitute a violation of the laws of each of the 
     signatory states. Such violation shall render the violator 
     subject to a civil penalty in an amount as may be prescribed 
     by the laws of each of the participating states, recoverable 
     in any state or federal court of competent jurisdiction. Each 
     day such violation continues shall constitute a separate 
     violation.
       ``(2) Constitute grounds for the revocation of license or 
     permit to engage in the milk business under the applicable 
     laws of the participating states.
       ``(b) With respect to handlers, the commission shall 
     enforce the provisions of this compact, regulations 
     establishing an over-order price, a commission marketing 
     order or other regulations adopted hereunder by:
       ``(1) Commencing an action for legal or equitable relief 
     brought in the name of the commission of any state or federal 
     court of competent jurisdiction; or
       ``(2) Referral to the state agency for enforcement by 
     judicial or administrative remedy with the agreement of the 
     appropriate state agency of a participating state.
       ``(c) With respect to handlers, the commission may bring an 
     action for injunction to enforce the provisions of this 
     compact or the order or regulations adopted thereunder 
     without being compelled to allege or prove that an adequate 
     remedy of law does not exist.

                         ``ARTICLE VII. FINANCE

     ``Sec. 18. Finance of start-up and regular costs

       ``(a) To provide for its start-up costs, the commission may 
     borrow money pursuant to its general power under section six, 
     subdivision (d), paragraph four. In order to finance the 
     costs of administration and enforcement of this compact, 
     including payback of start-up costs, the commission is hereby 
     empowered to collect an assessment from each handler who 
     purchases milk from producers within the region. If imposed, 
     this assessment shall be collected on a monthly basis for up 
     to one year from the date the commission convenes, in an 
     amount not to exceed $.015 per hundredweight of milk 
     purchased from producers during the period of the assessment. 
     The initial assessment may apply to the projected purchases 
     of handlers for the two-month period following the date the 
     commission convenes. In addition, if regulations establishing 
     an over-order price or a compact marketing order are adopted, 
     they may include an assessment for the specific purpose of 
     their administration. These regulations shall provide for 
     establishment of a reserve for the commission's ongoing 
     operating expenses.
       ``(b) The commission shall not pledge the credit of any 
     participating state or of the United States. Notes issued by 
     the commission and all other financial obligations incurred 
     by it, shall be its sole responsibility

[[Page 18801]]

     and no participating state or the United States shall be 
     liable therefor.

     ``Sec. 19. Audit and accounts

       ``(a) The commission shall keep accurate accounts of all 
     receipts and disbursements, which shall be subject to the 
     audit and accounting procedures established under its rules. 
     In addition, all receipts and disbursements of funds handled 
     by the commission shall be audited yearly by a qualified 
     public accountant and the report of the audit shall be 
     included in and become part of the annual report of the 
     commission.
       ``(b) The accounts of the commission shall be open at any 
     reasonable time for inspection by duly constituted officers 
     of the participating states and by any persons authorized by 
     the commission.
       ``(c) Nothing contained in this article shall be construed 
     to prevent commission compliance with laws relating to audit 
     or inspection of accounts by or on behalf of any 
     participating state or of the United States.

  ``ARTICLE VIII. ENTRY INTO FORCE; ADDITIONAL MEMBERS AND WITHDRAWAL

     ``Sec. 20. Entry into force; additional members

       ``The compact shall enter into force effective when enacted 
     into law by any three states of the group of states composed 
     of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
     Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 
     Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia and 
     when the consent of Congress has been obtained.

     ``Sec. 21. Withdrawal from compact

       ``Any participating state may withdraw from this compact by 
     enacting a statute repealing the same, but no such withdrawal 
     shall take effect until one year after notice in writing of 
     the withdrawal is given to the commission and the governors 
     of all other participating states. No withdrawal shall affect 
     any liability already incurred by or chargeable to a 
     participating state prior to the time of such withdrawal.

     ``Sec. 22. Severability

       ``If any part or provision of this compact is adjudged 
     invalid by any court, such judgment shall be confined in its 
     operation to the part or provision directly involved in the 
     controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered 
     and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder 
     of this compact. In the event Congress consents to this 
     compact subject to conditions, said conditions shall not 
     impair the validity of this compact when said conditions are 
     accepted by three or more compacting states. A compacting 
     state may accept the conditions of Congress by implementation 
     of this compact.''.

     SEC. 149. PACIFIC NORTHWEST DAIRY COMPACT.

       Congress consents to a Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact 
     proposed for the States of California, Oregon, and 
     Washington, subject to the following conditions:
       (1) Text.--The text of the Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact 
     shall be identical to the text of the Southern Dairy Compact, 
     except as follows:
       (A) References to ``south'', ``southern'', and ``Southern'' 
     shall be changed to ``Pacific Northwest''.
       (B) In section 9(b), the reference to ``Atlanta, Georgia'' 
     shall be changed to ``Seattle, Washington''.
       (C) In section 20, the reference to ``any three'' and all 
     that follows shall be changed to ``California, Oregon, and 
     Washington.''.
       (2) Limitation of manufacturing price regulation.--The 
     Dairy Compact Commission established to administer the 
     Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact (referred to in this section 
     as the ``Commission'') may not regulate Class II, Class III, 
     or Class IV milk used for manufacturing purposes or any other 
     milk, other than Class I, or fluid milk, as defined by a 
     Federal milk marketing order issued under section 8c of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937 
     (referred to in this section as a ``Federal milk marketing 
     order'').
       (3) Compensation of special milk program.--Before the end 
     of each fiscal year in which a Compact price regulation is in 
     effect, the Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact Commission shall 
     compensate the Secretary of Agriculture for the increased 
     cost of any milk and milk products provided under the special 
     milk program established under section 3 of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772) that results from the 
     operation of the Compact price regulation during the fiscal 
     year, as determined by the Secretary (in consultation with 
     the Commission) using notice and comment procedures provided 
     in section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
       (4) Effective date.--Congressional consent under this 
     section takes effect on the date (not later than 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act) on which the Pacific 
     Northwest Dairy Compact is entered into by the second of the 
     3 States specified in the matter preceding paragraph (1).
       (5) Compensation of commodity credit corporation.--Before 
     the end of each fiscal year in which a price regulation is in 
     effect under the Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact, the 
     Commission shall compensate the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     for the cost of any purchases of milk and milk products by 
     the Corporation that result from the operation of the Compact 
     price regulation during the fiscal year, as determined by the 
     Secretary (in consultation with the Commission) using notice 
     and comment procedures provided in section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (6) Milk marketing order administrator.--At the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of the applicable Federal 
     milk marketing order shall provide technical assistance to 
     the Commission and be compensated for that assistance.

     SEC. 150. INTERMOUNTAIN DAIRY COMPACT.

       Congress consents to an Intermountain Dairy Compact 
     proposed for the States of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah, 
     subject to the following conditions:
       (1) Text.--The text of the Intermountain Dairy Compact 
     shall be identical to the text of the Southern Dairy Compact, 
     except as follows:
       (A) In section 1, the references to ``southern'' and 
     ``south'' shall be changed to ``Intermountain'' and 
     ``Intermountain region'', respectively.
       (B) References to ``Southern'' shall be changed to 
     ``Intermountain ''.
       (C) In section 9(b), the reference to ``Atlanta, Georgia'' 
     shall be changed to ``Salt Lake City, Utah''.
       (D) In section 20, the reference to ``any three'' and all 
     that follows shall be changed to ``Colorado, Nevada, and 
     Utah.''.
       (2) Limitation of manufacturing price regulation.--The 
     Dairy Compact Commission established to administer the 
     Intermountain Dairy Compact (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Commission'') may not regulate Class II, Class III, or 
     Class IV milk used for manufacturing purposes or any other 
     milk, other than Class I, or fluid milk, as defined by a 
     Federal milk marketing order issued under section 8c of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937 
     (referred to in this section as a ``Federal milk marketing 
     order'').
       (3) Compensation of special milk program.--Before the end 
     of each fiscal year in which a Compact price regulation is in 
     effect, the Intermountain Dairy Compact Commission shall 
     compensate the Secretary of Agriculture for the increased 
     cost of any milk and milk products provided under the special 
     milk program established under section 3 of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772) that results from the 
     operation of the Compact price regulation during the fiscal 
     year, as determined by the Secretary (in consultation with 
     the Commission) using notice and comment procedures provided 
     in section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
       (4) Effective date.--Congressional consent under this 
     section takes effect on the date (not later than 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act) on which the 
     Intermountain Dairy Compact is entered into by the second of 
     the 3 States specified in the matter preceding paragraph (1).
       (5) Compensation of commodity credit corporation.--Before 
     the end of each fiscal year in which a price regulation is in 
     effect under the Intermountain Dairy Compact, the Commission 
     shall compensate the Commodity Credit Corporation for the 
     cost of any purchases of milk and milk products by the 
     Corporation that result from the operation of the Compact 
     price regulation during the fiscal year, as determined by the 
     Secretary (in consultation with the Commission) using notice 
     and comment procedures provided in section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (6) Milk marketing order administrator.--At the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of the applicable Federal 
     milk marketing order shall provide technical assistance to 
     the Commission and be compensated for that assistance.

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a 
point of order on the amendment.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the Sherwood-Etheridge-McHugh amendment 
to the farm bill would implement provisions of H.R. 1827, the Dairy 
Consumers and Producers Protection Act of 2001, a very bipartisan 
measure sponsored by 165 Members of the House representing 30 sites in 
the country.
  This amendment allows the expansion and the extension of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact, which expired on September 30, and the 
creation of a Southern Dairy Compact, a Pacific Northwest Dairy 
Compact, and an Intermountain Dairy Compact.
  Other Members offering this amendment are the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  I have also sent out a Dear Colleague letter signed by 30 Members who 
want a debate and a vote on dairy compact

[[Page 18802]]

extension and expansion legislation. The time has come for this debate.
  Dairy compacts are good for our farmers, they are good for our 
consumers and our Nation for several reasons: They operate at no cost 
to taxpayers; they are constitutional; they enjoy strong support in 
Congress; and in the 25 States in which they have been overwhelmingly 
passed, the vote was over 5,000 to 300 for.
  They keep dairy farmers producing high-quality milk our consumers 
demand at a stable and affordable price. Compacts also strengthen rural 
communities and help save farmland from urban sprawl. The reason they 
operate at no cost to taxpayers is the payments come from the milk 
market, and they are only made to farmers when the compact commission 
price is over the Federal marketing price.
  That only happens on certain occasions. Right now, the compact would 
not be effective. The Federal order price is sufficient for people to 
produce milk. But when it goes down, it is a great safety net for 
producers of fluid milk.
  The compacts are constitutional. Since passage of compact legislation 
in the 1996 farm bill, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia affirmed on January 20, 1998, that the compact is 
constitutional. Additional court rulings found that the compact 
commission's regulations were consistent with the commerce clause, the 
compact clause, and the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
  Concerning bioterrorism, it will be much better for the stability of 
our food supply if milk is produced across the country, instead of just 
in certain concentrated areas. Milk is also proven to be cheaper under 
the compact in Boston than it is in many other areas of the country.
  So in summary, Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons for compacts. 
They are good for farmers and rural communities, they are good for food 
security in a terrorist time, they are good for consumers because it 
assures a stable supply of fresh milk at a good price, they are good 
for taxpayers because the payments do not come out of the public 
Treasury, and they are proven in New England to work.
  Mr. Chairman, I grew up in a small town in Nicholson, Pennsylvania. 
As a young man, we had three creameries, four feed dealers, and two 
automobile and equipment dealers in that little town. Today, there are 
none of those. The consolidation of agriculture is very tough on rural 
communities. So I would ask that we support this measure and pass dairy 
compacts. They are good for the country.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support, as a cosponsor 
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Sherwood), along with the other Members who are signing onto this, and 
the over 160 Members, and counting, of this House of Representatives 
that support not only the continuation of the dairy compact but the 
expansion of the compact.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a document and legislation that is 
being supported by State legislatures, that is being supported by 
governors, and that is asking the United States Congress, not for the 
first time, Mr. Chairman, but for the third time to extend and expand 
the compact.
  This works. It has worked well. My friends may offer arguments by 
saying it protects a region, that it increases the prices, and is not a 
benefit to the consumers. But the facts do not bear that out. In the 
compact States, as we have been able to show, the production is down 
versus the national average. In the compact States, the prices are 
lower than the national average. The consumers have actually been able 
to benefit.
  I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that by supporting locally owned 
independent small businesses, which are these agricultural entities, we 
are supporting the strength of America and the strength of Maine, which 
is predominantly small businesses, family businesses.
  In my own family business, we have always lamented about the fact 
that we have been exempted from child labor laws, so we worked early 
and often, and we did not receive very much for it. But as my mother 
says to me today, it never hurt any of us at all.
  I think that the strength of that work ethic, that family involvement 
in local communities, is something that this compact supports, so we 
should not be discouraging these kinds of developments, but we should 
be encouraging these kinds of developments. What is wrong with locally 
owned home-grown small businesses, agricultural businesses? For far too 
long, we have been relegated to the back parts of America and in our 
communities.
  I have always said to people, if we were able to fence it in like a 
defense establishment and be able to talk about the farm families, the 
farm income, and the impact to our communities, we as political leaders 
would be falling all over ourselves to do everything possible to make 
sure not only we kept them but we expanded upon them.
  Agriculture is our strongest defense, and our national food security 
interest. I think it is vital to make sure that they are strong and 
healthy and vibrant. This is the kind of a program that the dairy 
compact has been able to produce.
  Having worked on two agricultural farm programs over the 8 years that 
I have served in Congress, the importance is to make sure that we have 
a countercyclical program, to make sure that we have a program that 
works with farmers, works with communities.
  This is the ultimate program. It does not kick in unless it hits a 
floor. Right now, the fluid milk prices are at a particular level that 
we do not need to have the compact kick in, but if, in fact, things do 
not maintain that high level, the compact kicks in, so it is a floor. 
It is an insurance policy. Also, they have been able to see that the 
lack of reduction in farm families that occurred in the compact areas.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the House, I rise in 
strong support of the amendment to the Farm Bill proposed by my 
colleagues Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Etheridge, and Mr. McHugh to extend and 
expand the Northeast Dairy Compact and to authorize the creation of 
other Interstate Dairy Compacts in other regions of the country.
  I was disappointed that this important amendment did not receive a 
waiver from the Rules Committee yesterday to allow for a definitive up 
or down vote in the full House of Representatives. I would like to 
stress the importance of this amendment to dairy farmers in the 
Northeast as well as other states wishing to enter into their own dairy 
compacts.
  As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I have worked diligently to 
help craft a Farm Bill which not only maintains current agriculture 
policy, but expands conservation and research to represent the changing 
values of American farmers. I believe that a critical part of our farm 
policy must be Interstate Dairy Compacts. The existing authorization 
for the Northeast Dairy Compact expired on September 30, 2001.
  One of the highlights of this year's Farm Bill is a return to the 
counter-cyclical price support system to aid farmers when prices drop 
below a sustainable level. Dairy Compacts provide the ultimate counter-
cyclical payment: farmers receive aid only when milk prices drop below 
the Compact Commission-established minimum. In contrast to other farm 
support programs, however, all Compact expenditures come directly from 
the milk producers themselves, therefore costing the taxpayers nothing. 
Compacts allow for regions to best set their own prices, similar to 
other programs which delegate pricing authority to state and local 
levels. Evidence has shown that over the life of the Northeast Dairy 
Compact, consumers in Compact states have seen a reduction in milk 
prices, while farmers have received more for their milk on average than 
those in non-Compact states.
  Since the implementation of the Northeast Dairy Compact, there has 
been no overproduction of milk in the Compact region; in fact drinking 
milk consumption has outstripped production in New England during the 
Compact period. More to the point, a recent GAO study found the Compact 
structure to have little to no impact on price and production of milk 
in non-Compact states. We expect the same results from an expanded 
Northeast Compact and the new Compacts authorized under this amendment.
  During the year 2000 alone, the Compact provided $4.8 million in 
assistance to Maine farmers, at absolutely no cost to the federal 
government. Through the benefits of the Compact, the rate of decline in 
the number of

[[Page 18803]]

Maine dairy farms dropped from 16% to 6%. In short, dairy compacts save 
farms and allow for locally produced milk to reach consumers at a 
competitive price.
  In addition to these statistics, we must also take into account the 
intangible benefits that Dairy Compacts can provide. Preservation of 
open space and conservation of land has become a key issue facing this 
Farm Bill.
  Dairy Compacts protect open space by allowing farmers to receive 
competitive prices for their milk and remain in business. Wildlife 
habitat is saved from sprawl and intrusion by ever-expanding urban 
communities, and families have a chance to purchase locally-produced 
milk at a stable price. The importance of compacts cannot be 
understated, as evidenced by the number of states seeking to join one.
  I understand that this amendment will not reach a final vote because 
of a point of order. It is my intention to work with my colleagues to 
find another vehicle by which to resurrect the Dairy Compact structure 
which expired September 30th. This is a program which is vitally 
important to dairy farmers in Maine and at least 25 other states. My 
colleagues who support the Dairy Compact and I will continue to press 
ahead to see that our farmers receive the assistance that they need and 
deserve. I ask only that the Compact be given a chance for a fair vote 
so that this issue can be resolved.
  Mr. McGOVERN, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sherwood, 
Etheridge, McHugh amendment to permanently authorize the Northeast 
Dairy Compact. This is a good program that is vital for dairy farmers 
in the northeast and southeast--farmers I represent.
  The Northeast Diary Compact expired on September 30, 2001--merely 3 
days ago. The House could have addressed this issue by allowing a 
debate and a vote on the compact at any point this year. Instead, the 
House and the other chamber decided to ignore the plight of dairy 
farmers.
  Members of Congress from the Northeast and the Southeast have worked 
tirelessly to reauthorize the dairy compact and to extend it to help 
those dairy farmers who don't have the fortune of living in the 
Midwest.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact is good, sound policy for my dairy 
farmers and for dairy farmers who live outside of Wisconsin and 
Minnesota. In the absence of a national dairy policy, the dairy compact 
is the only way for these dairy farmers to remain viable.
  Dairy prices today are comparable to prices in 1978 and my farmers 
cannot stay in business with these low prices. The 270 dairy farms in 
Massachusetts received an average of $13,300 per farm in 2000. This 
total, $3.6 million in all, came at no cost to federal, state or local 
governments. Like farmers in other sectors of agriculture in other 
parts of the country, dairy farmers in the Northeast cannot succeed 
without help.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact is not only a priority for dairy farmers 
but it is also a priority for conservationists. As we know, urban 
sprawl is diminishing our quality of life. By helping farms stay open, 
the Northeast Dairy Company has protected over 113,000 acres of open 
space from urban sprawl. Without the compact, we'll see open space 
turning into strip malls, WalMarts or parking lots. The Dairy Compact 
is good for the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, the only action dairy compact supporters have asked for 
is an up or down vote on this issue. Our dairy farmers deserve the 
opportunity to have this issue debated fairly and to have the House 
express its support or disapproval for dairy compact. Dairy is a 
commodity and should be debated along with other commodities. The Farm 
Bill is the right place to have this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take time to thank several Members who have 
been active on the Dairy Compact. Specifically, I want to thank former 
Representative Asa Hutchison for introducing the bill to permanently 
authorize the Northeast Dairy Compact and to form the Southeast Dairy 
Compact. I also want to thank Representatives Don Sherwood, Bob 
Etheridge and John McHugh for offering this amendment today. And I want 
to thank Chairman Jim Walsh and Representative Bernie Sanders, as well 
as the other Members in the Northeast and Southeast, for their hard 
work and commitment to the Dairy Compact.
  On September 17, 2001, the Boston Globe editorialized on the 
Northeast Dairy Compact. I quote--``If Congress doesn't act by the end 
of this month, dairy farmers in New England will lose a regional price 
support system that has helped to keep many in business. The long-term 
effect will be loss of farms, farmland, and locally produced fresh 
milk.''
  I urge the leadership of both parties to come together, schedule a 
debate and allow an up or down vote on the Dairy Compact This is the 
best we can do for all dairy farmers until we have a national policy.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Sherwood 
Amendment to permanently extend the Northeast Dairy Compact. This 
Compact is critical to the survival of small dairy farms not only in my 
district in New Hampshire but also throughout the Northeast. Its 
operation provides a safety net for New Hampshire farmers, and it 
ensures a stable supply of fresh, local milk for consumers.
  In my district, rural communities are profoundly affected by the 
survival of dairy farms, which provide jobs, purchase goods and 
services, and preserve dwindling agricultural land. The Northeast Dairy 
Compact has kept these farms in business for the good of farmers and 
consumers.
  Dairy compacts neither cost the federal government nor allow retail 
milk prices to increase disproportionately. Congress should listen to 
the farmers, taxpayers, and the twenty-five states, which have passed 
compact legislation, and support the permanent extension of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for 
the point of order to ensure that the proponents of the Northeast Dairy 
Compact are not able to extend this unwise experiment in dairy policy.
  Mr. Chairman, the current milk marketing system is complex and 
flawed, and the creation of the Northeast Dairy Compact has exacerbated 
the deficiencies of our national dairy policy. Dairy reform is needed, 
but we should not permit the continuation of the Northeast Dairy 
Compact, and we certainly should not allow an expansion of dairy 
compacts into other regions of the country.
  I am greatly troubled that the supporters of the Northeast Dairy 
Compact are once again attempting to bypass the rules of the House to 
impose a regional milk cartel that has hurt dairy farmers in my 
congressional district and throughout the upper Midwest region.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact initiative was inserted into the 1996 
Farm bill conference report in violation of House rules and the 
proponents utilized midnight parliamentary tactics to create a milk 
regime that distorts the market and hurts consumers. While it is worth 
noting that the Northeast Dairy Compact proponents are here on the 
House Floor today during the light of day, they are here, nevertheless, 
to offer an amendment to this year's Farm bill that is in violation of 
House rules. The rules of the House are very clear that the 
jurisdiction of interstate compacts falls within the House Judiciary 
Committee, not the House Agriculture Committee.
  Since this amendment to extend and expand this faulty compact is not 
germane to the Farm bill, it is incumbent upon the Chair to sustain the 
point of order and rule against this amendment. If my colleagues want 
this compact to continue, I would encourage them to follow the rules of 
the House and work with the Judiciary Committee.

                              {time}  1200


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will make my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
is recognized.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this point I stress the 
point of order that under clause 7 of rule XVI, this amendment is not 
germane. The amendment is not germane because all interstate compacts 
fall under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 
not the Committee on Agriculture. Therefore, the amendment fails to 
meet the jurisdictional test of clause 7 of rule XVI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, our dairy farmers are faced with extreme circumstances 
and have been for quite some time. Today in this House we have an 
opportunity to debate, discuss and vote on the single greatest source 
of relief for those people. It really, fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, is 
we are faced with a question of fairness in whether this House can 
deliberate openly and do the business of the people.
  We are faced with an underlying bill that addresses all sorts of 
commodity issues, but for New York and the Northeast, we do very little 
as it relates to supporting dairy farmers and small dairy families.
  I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that there is tremendous and 
substantial support, 165 Members representing 30 States from both sides 
of

[[Page 18804]]

the aisle have co-sponsored this. Twenty-five states have asked this 
Congress to act and allow them the opportunity to move forward and 
develop compacts within their region.
  The policy is very good. During these tough economic times while we 
are contemplating appropriating tens of billions of dollars for an 
economic stimulus package, here is a process, a program that will 
afford substantial parts of this Nation, a substantial sector in this 
Nation, economic relief without costing the Federal Government a dime.
  As some other speakers have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
to also say that there is a very important point that needs to be 
brought to light considering the recent events that we have faced in 
this Nation. Opponents have said the concept of regionalized dairy 
policy is an outdated concept. Unfortunately and sadly, due to the 
events of September 11, we now see that our transportation system 
cannot only be attacked but made vulnerable.
  Consumers deserve a stable supply of local fresh milk. Local farmers 
are the best way to do that. This amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) is an opportunity for this Congress to 
do something very positive and very forceful in that regard.
  Let me say this, Mr. Chairman, that it is an important strategic need 
that we actually are debating today. One that we need to have brought 
to this floor today, and if not today, soon. My constituents demand it. 
We need a debate on the extension and expansion of regional dairy 
compacts. We need to show America that at the core of all of this, when 
so much interest and so many Members and so many States support this 
notion, this Congress is able to act.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members that after the 
Chair rules on this point of order, Members may invoke the 5-minute 
rule to continue debate on this matter.
  The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, before the ruling, the germaneness issue 
here, is the charge being made that the dairy interest is not part of 
the agricultural interest? Is that the germaneness issue? That it does 
not belong in the debate even though we are talking about a 10-year 
reauthorization of the farm bill, that the dairy is not farm or not 
agriculture?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will rule after argument is heard 
by the proponents and opponents of the point of order.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the point of order should be 
sustained. The rules of the House very clearly state that interstate 
compacts, regardless of the nature of them, fall within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. This bill is a bill 
that has been produced not by the Committee on the Judiciary, but the 
Committee on Agriculture, and consequently the amendment does not meet 
the jurisdictional test that is contained in clause 7 of rule XVI. The 
point of order should be determined to be well taken.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that as an act of comity, the 
gentleman who originally raised the point of order will withdraw it at 
this time so that Members who feel strongly about this issue will have 
a chance to debate a life and death issue for hundreds of thousands of 
family farmers in this country.
  We understand the germaneness issue, but common courtesy would 
indicate that you allow many Members to come to the floor of the House 
and debate this issue. I do not know what my friend from Maine was 
going to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, but I have the feeling that 
he may have asked him how many hearings were held on this issue despite 
the fact that 165 Members of the Congress, Democrats, Republicans, 
Independents, Conservatives, Progressives are fighting for this issue.
  I think he might have asked the gentleman how many hearings were held 
when 25 States, half of the States in this country, voted to do 
something for their dairy farmers in supporting the dairy compact. We 
can argue the merits or the demerits of the dairy compact. It has 
worked. I am a strong proponent of it. It has helped save family farms. 
But the more important issue is basic fairness here on the floor of the 
House. How do you turn your back, especially, I might say, those who 
believe in devolution, those who say, let the States have power, how do 
you say to those 25 States who are seeing their family farmers go out 
of business, their rural economies suffering, how do you say to those 
people, you cannot even get a hearing on the floor of the House. You 
cannot even get a vote on the floor of the House.
  If the Members are so sure of the righteousness of their our ideas, 
debate the ideas and bring a vote to the floor of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I would at least ask as an act of comity, may I have a 
dialogue with my friend who raised the point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Vermont suspend?
  The gentleman will remember that the Chair controls the time on the 
point of order, and members may not engage in colloquies.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I do remember that. I would ask my friend, 
yield to him briefly, would he be so kind as to withdraw his objection 
at this time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Vermont suspend?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just hope at least that we can 
continue this debate on such an important issue.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be 
recognized on this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is as 
black and white as the gentleman from Wisconsin maintains. There is 
genuine ambiguity about the germaneness of this amendment.
  Because while the statute the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) cites in terms of regional compacts is one 
consideration, the other consideration is that the agricultural bill 
and the Department of Agriculture do establish the whole milk marketing 
system, which is a market governance mechanism that if you were going 
to be consistent, should be under judiciary, if your point of order 
were to hold.
  This is merely a variant of the milk marketing order to accommodate 
it to meet the goals that the Department of Agriculture has set for its 
milk marketing system, which goals that milk marketing system does not 
meet. The milk marketing system's goals were to assure regional 
production, but within that system were also mechanisms to prevent 
overproduction.
  The national system is not working. This regional system is working. 
Under the national system, there was a 7.4 percent increase in 
production over the period of the compact, and in the region of the 
compact, production actually went down. Why? Because we have an 
incentive system that discourages overproduction. It is something the 
Federal Government has desperately tried to develop in every one of its 
ag subsidy programs and has failed.
  Our incentives to control production, which is a Department of 
Agriculture goal, part of the milk marketing order policy contained in 
this ag bill is a goal that is better achieved through this adjustment 
to the milk marketing order system than through underlying national 
policy because it does adjust that policy for regional concerns and 
puts in place not only a system that can address supply, but one in 
which consumers are represented. So it is a far more democratic process 
than the Federal milk marketing order process.
  So I would say that the issue of germaness is not black and white. It 
is

[[Page 18805]]

ambiguous, and we have every much as good a case that this is germane 
as the gentleman from Wisconsin has that it is not germane, and what 
should influence the Chair is not only that ambiguity, but the fact 
that the Committee on the Judiciary has refused to give this matter 
consideration, to hold hearings, to give us our voice, to even bring it 
to the floor with a negative recommendation or choose one of the other 
processes available.
  We should not be muffled. The interests of our people in national 
agricultural policy are very real, and this bill establishes national 
agricultural policy and has within it a market structure that is the 
market structure that we wish to adjust to regional interests. So I 
would say the issue is ambiguous, and I would urge the Chair to rule in 
favor of all those regions of the country that get no other benefit 
from the ag bill but would benefit in supporting the farm income in 
exactly the same way they want to support the income of other farmers 
under the ag bill.
  So I urge Members' support of the Sherwood amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Etheridge) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, on the issue of 
jurisdiction and ambiguity, and I understand the Chair is getting 
prepared to rule, but Mr. Chairman, I would join the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who just spoke that there is enough 
ambiguity. We are looking at issues that 25 States have expressed their 
wishes, governors have signed the papers indicating their wishes to be 
a part of a compact, my State being one of those States that want to be 
a part of it.
  We are seeing a loss in farmers. Twenty-five years ago in my State, 
there was 1,600 dairy farmers. Today, we have about a fourth of that 
figure. We are asking for trouble if we allow milk production to be 
consolidated into just a few small hands, and we have seen that, as you 
have already heard about what happened on September 11, continue.
  We must take action to allow more small dairy farmers to survive, and 
compacts are a proven method to do that. We have seen that in the 
northeast. If my State of North Carolina were a member of a compact as 
were other dairy States in the northeast, their combined income would 
have been over $20 million in the year 2000, but instead they received 
5.4 million in Federal dollars. They do not want the money from the 
Federal Government. They want to get it from the marketplace.
  We write these farm bills because of the fluctuation in the 
marketplace. It has made it difficult for farmers to plan, and we are 
trying to help level it out as we should to help production in 
agriculture, but denying a vote on the no cost options to help dairy 
farmers when prices decline simply does not make sense.
  That is what we are about. We are about a democratic body, expressing 
the wills and wishes of the people of this country. The northeast 
compact has shown that you can take the volatility out of the milk 
pricing, keep dairy farmers in business and provide a fresh supply of 
local milk at a fair price, all without costing the Federal Government 
a cent. We ought to be about that. That ought to be about what we are 
doing.
  The compact establishes a floor, as you have already said. Producers, 
consumers and even processors play a role in determining the price. 
Some argue that compacts cause overproduction of milk which would then 
flood our class III producers, like cheese, and cause the prices of 
these products to decline, but that has just not happened in what we 
have seen in the northeast. In fact, last year, every compact State saw 
a decrease in milk production, except one, and that was Vermont which 
had an increase of only 2.8 percent less than the national average. 
That follows a similar decrease in production in 1999. We ought to be 
endorsing that. That ought to be what we are working about as a body 
here to help make a difference.
  The northeast compact even provides incentives to farmers not to 
overproduce, and there is no reason why these incentives will not work 
in other parts of the Nation.
  Some may also argue that the northeast compact has not stopped dairy 
farmers from going out of business in that region. Nothing in this 
underlying farm bill will keep every single farmer in business, 
regardless if they are in dairy, wheat or any other product. We 
understand that, but since the compact has been in place, the rate of 
closing of dairy farms in the northeast has decreased. If we would have 
had that in my State of North Carolina, I am convinced we would have 
more dairy farmers today and this country would be better off.
  I could talk more about the benefits of the compact, and I hope as 
you consider your ruling, you will take this into effect, but Mr. 
Chairman, I believe if we deny a vote on this amendment, that will be 
most unfortunate, and the full debate of this House will not be had, 
and I would yield to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) for a comment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members, the Chair 
controls the time on arguments regarding the point of order, and 
members may not engage in colloquies.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, he yielded. He did not yield back his 
time. He yielded to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that the 
Chair controls the time on arguments both for and against this point of 
order. The Chair will remind Members as well, the Chair is entertaining 
arguments on the point of order. Members may remain, after the ruling 
on the point of order, to debate the substance of dairy policy if so 
desired.
  Does the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) wish to be heard on 
the point of order?

                              {time}  1215

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Does the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to offer advice to the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, clearly, listening to the debate now on 
this issue, it becomes clearer and clearer that the point of order is 
well taken. This is a debate about States' rights. We have heard that. 
That belongs in the judiciary, not the agriculture, bill.
  Now, a lot of the arguments we have heard today I share the concern. 
I represent a lot of dairy farmers. They have had a lot of tough luck 
here the last several years. And we are all entitled to our own 
opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. Let me just remind 
Members of a couple of important facts that have been underscored by 
independent consultants that have looked at this.
  The truth of the matter is we are losing dairy farmers at about the 
same rate in States that are in the compact as those States who are 
not. Now, we have heard these arguments this morning. We continue to 
hear them. Well, the dairy compacts will increase the amount of net 
income for dairy farmers, but it will not raise the price of milk; and 
it will not cost the taxpayers anything. Well, that sounds like the 
tooth fairy to me. The truth of the matter is, the only thing that we 
can honestly say that the dairy compacts have succeeded in doing is to 
divide the dairy farmers of the United States. That is a mistake.
  At the very time that we need to speak with one voice about dairy 
policy, we are speaking with different voices. We have the Northeast, 
we have the Southeast, we have the people in the Southwest, we have the 
Upper Midwest and we have California; and they are all speaking a 
different language. They are all suffering the same consequence. We are 
losing too many dairy farmers. But creating these intrastate cartels 
makes no sense.
  In terms of advice to the Chair, the reason that the 13 colonies came 
together, one of the reasons they came together was to prevent this 
very kind of thing from happening, from allowing

[[Page 18806]]

one or two or several States to come together to gang up against the 
rest. One of the arguments the proponents forward is, well, we have 165 
co-sponsors. Well, perhaps they can get even more States into their 
compact and they can get 300 cosponsors. That still does not make it 
right. The real issue is whether or not States ought to be able to come 
together to gang up on other States.
  The net result to the Upper Midwest ultimately will be is that we 
will be pinched further and further and further. In Wisconsin and in 
Minnesota we are losing three to four dairy farmers every single day. 
And creating compacts in the Northeast or the Southwest or the 
Southeast is not going to change that. It is going to make matters 
worse. So the only thing this accomplishes is it divides dairy farmers 
at the very time we ought to be speaking with one voice.
  A couple of years ago our colleague from Wisconsin read the formula 
by which milk prices are set for our dairy farmers under the milk 
marketing order system. It is the most convoluted system in the world. 
And the problem with the northeast dairy compact is it makes it even 
worse.
  We ought to have national pooling. The cows in my district do not 
know where the milk comes from. The cows in my district do not know 
where the milk comes from or what it goes into. We have this 
unbelievable system in the United States right now. Creating compacts 
only makes it worse. It divides dairy farmers. That is the reason the 
colonies came together, to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
  This amendment is not in order on this bill. Perhaps we should have 
the debate later, but let it work through the process in the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I do wish to be heard on the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the assertion has been made that the idea 
of establishing dairy compacts is not germane to the agricultural bill, 
the farm bill that is presently on the floor of this House and being 
debated here. In order to believe that, we would have to be prepared to 
believe that the dairy industry is not part of American agriculture; 
that farm bills ought not to address themselves to the dairy industry; 
and that parts of the United States ought not to have the opportunity 
to participate, as they see fit, in the provisions of agricultural law 
made by this Congress. That, on its face, is an absurd notion.
  The dairy compact ought to be recognized in the context of this 
debate; and we ought to have an opportunity, all of us, to be heard on 
it, and there ought to be a vote on it on the floor this afternoon in 
the context of the debate on this bill.
  One of the escape hatches that the proponents of this theory have 
established for themselves is the idea that this ought to be taken up 
not in the context of agricultural policy but it ought to be taken up 
by the Committee on the Judiciary as a matter of law under the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Well, some of us might 
be prepared to accept that if there was any possibility whatsoever that 
the Committee on the Judiciary in this House would address itself to 
this issue during the course of this Congress, but there has been no 
evidence presented anywhere that the Committee on the Judiciary has any 
interest in taking up this bill.
  So what the proponents of the agriculture bill and the proponents of 
this point of order would have us believe is, first of all, that dairy 
policy has no place in the farm bill; and that, secondly, they want us 
to believe the myth that the Committee on the Judiciary will take this 
issue up at some point in the future. Both of them are absurd. Both of 
them are false. Therefore, this point of order ought to be ruled 
against, and we ought to allow this amendment to be debated here on the 
floor this afternoon in the context of this 10-year agricultural bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the individual raising 
the point of order would accede to the very reasonable request advanced 
by our colleague, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), that the 
point of order at least be temporarily withdrawn so that we can discuss 
this issue in some detail on the floor.
  I think it is only fair and prudent that we request that the people's 
House work the people's will. The people's House cannot work the 
people's will if we have unyielding response from the committee of 
basic jurisdiction. And, believe me, I have the hardest time explaining 
to anyone why the dairy compact legislation is not germane to the farm 
bill; that it is off on another committee, the Committee on the 
Judiciary. Hard time explaining that. People think that the farm bill 
should deal with farm matters, and I certainly agree.
  The dairy compact will not cost the taxpayers a dime; not the Federal 
taxpayers, not the State taxpayers. What it does is allow farmers to 
help themselves. It gets away from the command and control notion that 
Washington is the source of all wisdom and should regulate everything 
and places faith and the fate of dairy farmers in the hands of State 
governments and the farmers themselves. And let me tell my colleagues 
that I have a lot more confidence in the farmers of America than I do a 
lot of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
  Over 25 States have already, by overwhelming vote, approved 
legislation which has been then endorsed by each Governor, and it was 
not squeaky margins. The total vote was 5,405 for the dairy compacts 
and only 316 against. And then I have people come up and tell me, well, 
if Congress passes the dairy compact legislation, it is going to mean 
that the price of milk might go up. Well, if we do approve the dairy 
compact legislation, there might be a penny or two a gallon increase in 
the price of milk. But I tell my colleagues, we live in a town that 
takes a poll every nanosecond. We poll everything. And poll after poll 
proves conclusively that the American people are sympathetic to the 
plight of the Nation's dairy farmers and would be willing to accept a 
modest penny or two a gallon increase in the price of milk if they were 
convinced that the money went to the people who need it, the dairy 
farmers themselves.
  In my own State of New York, we have lost 2,133 farms since 1995, and 
those were figures current only as of the first of this year. My friend 
from Wisconsin talks about the plight of his dairy farmers. Well, I can 
assure him the same thing holds true for the dairy farmers of New York. 
They are going out of business one after another. That just should not 
be. If we continue on this road, pretty soon we will see an American 
landscape with one after another dairy farms out of business. We will 
have the concentration of all production in the hands of a very few 
mega-corporate farms. And guess what? They will dictate the price to 
all of us. Katy, bar the door. We do not want that.
  And as a national security issue, and all of us are concerned about 
national security, particularly during these very difficult times, as a 
national security issue we should keep the small family dairy farms in 
business. If my colleagues are concerned about urban sprawl, and boy, 
everybody tells us how concerned they are about urban sprawl, think of 
what we do if we allow the continued demise of the family farm and 
force the family farmers to sell to the developers. All of America will 
be developed.
  Let me close with this thought. I have so much more that I could say, 
but I think it was said best by a Wisconsin dairy farmer in the 
Nation's leading dairy farm journal, Hoard's Dairyman. He said, 
``Compacts are a good thing overall. Support,'' he said,

[[Page 18807]]

``our brother and sister dairy farmers in the northeast and encourage 
compacts elsewhere. That is in the interest of fairness.''
  We are not pitting a few States against a few other States. We are 
opening up the door of opportunity for all the States to do as they 
wish. I would strongly urge the offerer of the point of order to 
rethink that contention. And perhaps in the interest of comity, as 
suggested by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), let us talk some 
more in the people's House about the people's will.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to address the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
will confine his remarks to the point of order and is recognized.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I think the Chair has been 
most generous in allowing Members to range beyond the focus of the 
point of order. Obviously, the point of order raised by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin is correct, because the committee which is considering 
this legislation does not have jurisdiction with respect to the issue 
of compacts.
  With respect to the question of hearings, Mr. Chairman, I would point 
out that I find it quaint that somehow the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) is being questioned for the lack of hearings held 
by the Committee on the Judiciary, when in fact the entire compact 
arrangement was imposed on the country without ever having had a 
hearing in either House, and, in fact, without having a vote in this 
House. The history demonstrates that the only vote that occurred was in 
the other body, and the other body turned down the proposition of 
compacts. Then somehow, through the process of immaculate conception, 
we wound up getting dairy compacts in a conference report in violation 
of the rules of both Houses.
  So it seems to me it is time to uphold the rule of the House. After 
that has been done, Mr. Chairman, then I would hope that we could bring 
the regions of the country together on this issue, as we are trying to 
bring all parties in this country together on a wide variety of issues 
in light of what happened the last 3 weeks. And I would hope that we 
could actively pursue some kind of a compromise on this issue. I know 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has been working to try to 
develop a framework around which we might be able to achieve some 
regional togetherness, for a change, which I think would be a healthy 
development.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, very clearly without getting into the merits of the 
issue, it was clear from the beginning when compacts were imposed on 
the country through an egregious violation of the rules of both 
Chambers, and right now it is clear under the rules of this House that 
this amendment is not germane; and, therefore, the gentleman's point of 
order should stand.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington.) For what 
purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania rise?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized to speak on the 
point of order.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make the 
statement that if milk marketing belongs in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, then missile defense belongs in the Committee on 
Agriculture. How many staff people on the Committee on the Judiciary 
know anything about agricultural marketing systems?
  There is nobody, and there should not be anybody. To use a stretch of 
the rules, to use a technicality to deprive this House of a debate of 
one of the most important farm issues facing this country is wrong. For 
this House not to have the right to debate this issue up or down is 
wrong. It is unfair.
  Just last week in response to a terrorism act, we spent billions on 
American airlines to help them. This bill gives millions to corporate, 
rich farmers to help them. An amendment yesterday that I supported that 
limited that help to $150,000, which is pretty sizable, was defeated. 
Wrongly, but it was defeated.
  The most important issue facing this country, dairy, what is in this 
bill to help it? Not a dime. Not a word. Not any guidance, and that is 
wrong.
  This House needs to debate agricultural issues with the agricultural 
bills before this House, not in the Committee on the Judiciary. Dairy 
farmers are fighting for their life for a stable market, a stable 
market. It is the most wholesome natural food we have. I have a 
perspective that is different than most of my colleagues. I was a 
supermarket operator for 26 years. I sold food for a living.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the food distribution system. And we have 
the safest system in the world; the most cost-effective system in the 
world; and we give the best, purest products to our people. When our 
people go to our supermarkets and come home, they have fresh products 
because we have the best system in the world.
  Yes, milk is very reasonable. You can buy it for $2.50 a gallon. It 
is often cheaper than soda which is flavoring, soda water, and sugar. 
Milk is often cheaper than the juice drinks which are a little bit of 
juice and a lot of water and sugar.
  Yes, when my colleagues go to convenience stores, they pay $1.90 for 
a 16-ounce or 20-ounce bottle of water. More expensive than milk. Can 
we not be put in the Committee on the Judiciary? Can we have this issue 
before us as part of the agricultural issue to develop a marketing 
system that is fair? That allows our farmers to have a stable price.
  It is okay for the moment, but for 2 years our dairy farmers produced 
milk at less than what it cost. For 2 years, not 2 months, not 3 
months; and it has put thousands of them out of business. The Northeast 
Dairy Compact had a steadying effect upon farms with fewer farms lost 
in compact States after the initiation of the compact.
  A new policy is needed to address the complete failure of our current 
dairy policy. Dairy compact legislation has passed in 25 States. Dairy 
compacts return power to the States over fluid milk.
  We must make sure that we allow a stable supply of milk and dairy 
products throughout this country, that we are not hauling them from 
coast to coast. We need regional dairy supplies, and the dairy compact 
legislation will allow us to work towards that.
  Consumers are not stuck with higher prices in compact States. OMB and 
others found that price surveys show that compact retail prices are 
more stable and not more expensive to the consumer. We just want a fair 
debate on an agricultural issue with the farm bill in front of us.
  I urge Mr. Chairman to rule that this issue stays before the 
Committee on Agriculture where it belongs.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina rise?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized to speak on 
the point of order.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the point of 
order, and also to say that we certainly can use a point of order when 
we want to.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) discussed the incident 
where we considered the appropriation for aviation. That did not go 
through any committee. Members understood the urgency of waiving the 
point of order so we could respond to the urgency of the airline 
industry.
  Well, I have come to say that the point of order should not stand in 
the way of us responding to the urgency of our dairy farmers. They have 
the same urgency. There needs to be some vote up or down. We should 
have a right to at least debate it.
  The whole issue, one of my colleagues said that this is 
unconstitutional, that is a bogus argument. It has been tried in the 
State court of New York and the Federal courts, and they say the 
compact is constitutional. So the issue that we are putting together 
something that is going to bar trade

[[Page 18808]]

does not do that. It does not violate that trade barrier.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to find a way where agricultural issues that 
have the same urgency that the people of that industry suffer, just 
like the airline industry, at least we ought to be able to give them 
the right to discuss it.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, when we have rules of the House that can 
defeat public debate, the Chair is required to ensure that the Chair 
has not stifled that debate by ensuring there will be full hearing in 
the House. Now, I do not know if that has been discussed. Have you 
inquired whether the Committee on the Judiciary plans to have a hearing 
any time in the next 14 months?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will rule on the point of order 
after hearing the arguments on the point of order.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, can I ask in the ruling on the point of 
order, if the point of order is going to be insisted upon, there ought 
to be a corresponding responsibility that the Committee on the 
Judiciary will indeed have the obligation of hearing it? Can I ask 
that?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will rule on the germaneness 
point of order that has been raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin. 
The Chair will go no further than ruling on that point of order.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the germaneness is based on the House 
rule?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule after the Chair hears the arguments 
on the point of order.


  Mrs. CLAYTON. My point is that I do not know how the Chair can 
sustain a point of order based on the House rule that there is 
committee jurisdiction or there is exclusive jurisdiction unless the 
Chair is asserting that that particular committee that claims that 
jurisdiction plans to pursue that responsible role. Otherwise, the 
Chair is part of the frustration in denying a full debate on the issue.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will advise Members there has 
been a great deal of discussion regarding the point of order. The Chair 
will listen to two more Members on the point of order, and then the 
Chair is prepared to rule having heard the arguments.
  The Chair will advise Members that they may stay after the ruling of 
the Chair and seek recognition to speak to their hearts' content on the 
dairy issue regardless of the Chair's ruling.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from New York rise?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on Rules which 
has the responsibility of technically looking at claims of 
jurisdiction, waiving points of order, and other considerations 
relative to the farm bill this year.
  We know that it is an open rule. We recognized that the chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary wrote a very clear cover letter on the 
history of jurisdiction and the judiciary responsibility over dairy 
compacts, and he stated that case in his letter. The Committee on Rules 
stood by that as no waivers or points of order were made on the 
legislation.
  So we have it before us today with a point of order that gets down to 
family farmers, not technical decisions of the House of 
Representatives. As some of my colleagues eloquently said before me, 
September 30 expired the Northeast Dairy Compact. Those farmers in the 
existing compact and those from my State that have the ability to make 
the drive into that compact no longer have the compact in existence.
  So when we look at jurisdiction and the aspect of respect of 
jurisdiction, particularly as this legislation has had that history 
since being referred there by the parliamentarian in the 1990s when the 
compact concept came before us, that is a tough thing to explain to my 
farmers in New York.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent the largest dairy-producing county in New 
York. I cannot tell them why I cannot get an up-or-down vote on farm 
policy that affects their very livelihoods. In a 10-year period, the 
number of dairy farms in New York drastically dropped from 13,887 to 
only 8,700, a loss of more than 5,000 family farms. Though dairy farms 
are going out of business at a rate of 36 percent a year.
  Compacts would help save the farm lands in rural communities, and the 
family farms need the assurance of stable milk prices which the compact 
provides. Dairy compacts will make certain that the bottom does not 
fall out on the dairy market. That has been the message of the tough 
deliberation on the concept of dairy compacts that were brought before 
the State, as Farm Bureaus, county by county decided to support it 
years ago.
  Today when we look at jurisdiction, which no one can explain back 
home why the farm bill will not allow with 165 cosponsors of the 
legislation calling for dairy compacts throughout the country, if those 
States so desire, why there is not an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I implore the gentleman who has raised the point of 
order that we look at the possibility of that happening today, and 
pleas from across the country; or, that we begin to look at when I can 
look my farmers in the eye in New York and tell them there will be a 
vote on the will of the Congress based on the dairy compact 
legislation. Either it will pass or it will not, so we know where we go 
from here. But not to have a vote, as the dairy compacts have expired 
on September 30, and find us today debating a farm bill on the 2nd day, 
and not having the ability to use a commonsense approach of an up-or-
down vote on the will of 165 cosponsors of this House, is something 
that no one can explain outside of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I implore consideration if not today, tomorrow or the 
next day, but that we proceed with hearings and a vote of finality up 
or down on dairy compacts by this House.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Maine rise?
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the decision before the Chair on the point 
of order is vitally important. As the gentleman from New York said, 
this will be tough to explain to people in Maine because I believe, as 
they believe, that the issue dealing with the dairy compact has to be 
germane to the farm bill. Any other conclusion, it seems to me, is 
unexplainable.
  As the gentleman from New York just said, the Northeast Dairy Compact 
just expired on September 30. When that compact was created in 1997, 
the goal was to provide dairy farmers in the Northeast with some 
modicum of price stability and consumers in New England with some 
stability in retail milk prices.
  Mr. Chairman, 4 years later those goals have been achieved, and the 
compact should be allowed to continue. What do I say to consumers in 
Maine, dairy farmers in Maine. Well, the dairy compact, the future of 
the dairy industry in my home State of Maine is a matter that needs to 
go before the Committee on the Judiciary where there is not the 
expertise to deal with it. That will not wash. That will not wash in 
Maine, and it will not wash anywhere in the Northeast.

                              {time}  1245

  Ray and Tina Ellsworth in Sabattus, Maine wrote to my office just 
last week, saying that without the dairy compact, they will not be able 
to afford to milk their cows. What do I tell Ray and Tina Ellsworth? 
``Well, this is a matter that needs to go to the Judiciary Committee. 
They don't have the expertise on the Judiciary Committee. The expertise 
is on the Agriculture Committee.'' But somehow they will not understand 
that kind of reasoning.
  Maine consumers have very simple requests. They want a reliable 
source of fresh milk, and the dairy compact makes that possible. The 
dairy compact protects farmers. It costs taxpayers nothing. It does not 
lead to overproduction of milk. This is a case where we have been able, 
through the

[[Page 18809]]

compact in the Northeast, to satisfy our dairy farmers, to protect our 
consumers and provide stability.
  The last thing I would say is, well, two things. First of all, the 
desire for dairy compacts around the country is well known. Twenty-five 
States have passed legislation. This is a direction that makes sense 
for farmers and for consumers. But in the State of Maine, we have got 
our potato industry, which is smaller than it used to be. The chicken 
farms are all gone. We have got some roadside stands. Agriculture in 
Maine outside of potatoes has almost everything to do with dairy. That 
is all we have got, 460 dairy farms. That is it. If we lose this dairy 
compact, those farms are in severe jeopardy. They probably, most of 
them, will not be able to continue. And it is a travesty for us not to 
be able to come to the floor of this House and have a vote, up or down, 
across the country on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, you have the matter before you, but I urge you to 
reject the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair has 
heard the entire argument and is prepared to rule. The debate on the 
merits of the point of order has been going on now for nearly an hour, 
and so the Chair is prepared to rule. But the Chair would also remind 
Members that under the rules providing for consideration of this bill, 
Members can speak under the 5-minute rule on the merits of dairy 
compacts after the point of order has been dispensed with.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin raises a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not germane.
  The bill, H.R. 2646, is a comprehensive agriculture bill. It 
addresses programs covering nearly all of the subject matters within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. In addition to a 
comprehensive treatment of agricultural law, it also addresses the 
subject matters of human nutrition, forestry, and rural development, 
matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 
2646 was referred to and reported by the Committee on Agriculture. It 
also amends programs addressing the foreign distribution of 
agricultural commodities, a matter specifically excepted from the 
jurisdictional statement of the Committee on Agriculture in rule X. On 
this basis, the bill was sequentially referred to and reported by the 
Committee on International Relations.
  The amendment would place additional terms on an existing dairy 
compact and provide the consent of Congress to three new compacts. As 
stated in clause 1(k) of rule X, ``Interstate compacts generally'' fall 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
jurisdictional origin of the compact is traced to the Constitution. 
Article 1, section 10, clause 3, of the United States Constitution 
provides that ``no State shall, without the consent of Congress, enter 
into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign 
power.'' Congress' consent is required in order to prevent interstate 
agreements and compacts from harming nonparty States or conflicting 
with Federal law or Federal interests. The Chair would note that a bill 
in this Congress, H.R. 1827, had similar text to the amendment and was 
referred solely to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no 
proposition on a ``subject different that from that under consideration 
shall be admitted under color of amendment.'' One of the central tenets 
of the germaneness rule is that an amendment should be within the 
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill. This principle is 
recorded on page 682 of the House Rules and Manual. This principle is 
not the exclusive test of germaneness where the proposition being 
amended contains provisions so comprehensive, through amendments to 
other laws, as to overlap several committees' jurisdictions. The Chair 
would note a relevant precedent.
  On October 8, 1985, the Committee of the Whole was considering an 
omnibus agriculture bill that included provisions that were added by 
floor amendments amending other laws within the jurisdiction of the 
Committees of Energy and Commerce, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Ways 
and Means, and Foreign Affairs. The Chair held that an amendment 
conditioning eligibility in price support and payment programs upon 
furnishing agricultural employees with certain labor protections, 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor, was 
germane. This precedent is memorialized in Deschler-Brown Precedents, 
volume 10, chapter 28, section 4.67.
  While the pending bill is a comprehensive agriculture bill, it does 
not amend laws within the jurisdiction of several committees, as was 
the case with the 1985 precedent.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania falls 
outside the jurisdictions reported in the pending text. The Chair finds 
that the sweep of those jurisdictions, those of the Committee on 
Agriculture and the Committee on International Relations, is not so 
broad as to render that test of germaneness invalid.
  The Chair therefore holds that the amendment is not germane. The 
point of order is sustained.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to this issue. I do not have a dog in 
this fight on dairy farmers, but it is about the rightness. It is about 
the rightness to allow a vote in the People's House. The chairman of 
Judiciary is against dairy compacts. It is ridiculous. That is why they 
want it referred there, because it will never see the light of day in 
Judiciary. He will kill it and stop this body from having a fair vote 
on the issue.
  The same issue happened with H.R. 218. We had 372 votes in this House 
on both sides of the aisle and the chairman is opposed to that and he 
killed it. He fired one of his staffers because they brought it up. And 
even yesterday in a mark, let me be careful in my words, members of his 
own committee were strongly told not to offer the amendment.
  That is wrong, Mr. Chairman. For one person, one chairman, to have 
that power to stop the people's will, either on H.R. 218 or this dairy 
compact, is wrong. I will sign, which I oppose most of the time, a 
discharge petition to bring it up just to bring a vote to this floor.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in strong support, too, of the Sherwood-Etheridge-McHugh 
amendment. I am proud to discuss this matter because it needs to be 
voted on, dairy compacts, on this House floor.
  This amendment reauthorizes a program that works, one that benefits 
farmers and consumers alike. I have heard a lot of talk how it has not 
worked in some parts of the country, but according to all my facts, it 
has worked in the northeastern United States and we need it in the 
southeast. It does not cost taxpayers anything. Payments to support 
dairy producers in times of need come from the milk market itself and 
outside of the compact support themselves.
  From the Northeast Dairy Compact, we have learned that a compact 
among dairy producers will not cause overproduction. We know that rural 
America is going broke today, and we know that rural America in 
Mississippi and especially our agriculture community is going out of 
business. A southeast dairy compact could help keep our farmers in 
business.
  We have also learned from compacts that they do not increase prices 
for the American consumer. For example, while the Northeast Dairy 
Compact provides a safety net for milk producers, the compact is 
required by its charter to see that retail milk prices do not increase 
disproportionately. Studies also show that the compact does not create 
a trade barrier or hinder trade of products from other parts of the 
country. In fact, in the Northeast Dairy Compact, trade increased by 7 
percent after 1 year.
  Finally, the compact does not affect Federal programs for the poor. 
In fact, the compact commission, by law, reimburses the most important 
Federal nutrition programs.
  Let us reauthorize a system that works and allow other States to join

[[Page 18810]]

together to stabilize the dairy farmer, dairy industry and protect the 
American consumers. Farmers and communities like Walthall County and 
Tylertown, Mississippi need this legislation. In Mississippi, we had 
700 dairy farmers 6 years ago. Now we are down to 300. This compact 
will help keep them in business.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise, too, in strong support of the dairy compact 
concept, the freestanding bill, this amendment which had been offered 
on the agricultural bill, the farm bill. The opposition to the dairy 
compact clearly had the right to bring their point of order, and they 
did that and they did it successfully. But we just do not all have 
rights, we have responsibilities, too. They have a responsibility, and 
this whole body has a responsibility, to face and debate and vote on an 
issue which is so important to so many American communities.
  This compact legislation has existed for some time with very 
significant bipartisan support. It goes to the heart, the backbone of 
so many communities, in the Northeast where there has been a compact, 
in the Southeast, my part of the world, where we desire a compact, and 
other parts of the United States. Yet any vote, any vote whatsoever on 
the entire concept, has been blocked time and time again through 
procedural hurdles and often the will of single individuals. So we can 
talk about rights and points of order, but we also must talk about 
responsibilities. It is all of our responsibility and it is the 
responsibility of this body to act and vote on this issue of vital 
importance.
  In Louisiana, which I represent, dairy farmers are going out of 
business every week. About 80 percent of all dairies in the State are 
in my part of the State in my district. And every week they are going 
out of business. They are going out of business because of the extreme 
volatility at times of milk prices. What the compact is designed, very 
well designed, to do is stabilize, do away with those huge peaks and 
valleys, stabilize that lay of the land, not as we so often do in the 
area of agriculture with buckets of taxpayer dollars, but within the 
milk industry itself. And this is not some wild theory, some wild 
model. This is a plan that has successfully been put in place 
specifically in the Northeast.
  We have concrete and specific history and record to go on. And what 
is that history? It is not some dramatic increase in milk prices. It is 
either a modest, slight increase or no increase at all, because the 
price of milk in Boston is lower significantly than in many other parts 
of the country.
  So this can work. This can help dairy stabilize their future. This 
can do all of that without giving any shock to consumers. And it is 
needed, not just by dairies but by communities, because the dairies, 
because the agricultural part of those communities are often the 
backbone, the spirit of those communities, in the Northeast, in the 
Southeast and elsewhere around the country.
  Let me end where I began, by asking those opponents of the dairy 
compact to not just consider their rights to a point of order or 
anything else but to join us as we all consider our responsibilities. 
We have a responsibility to debate this issue, and we have a 
responsibility to have a vote on this issue. We need that vote. We need 
that debate. We cannot simply go on forever and never have any vote on 
the issue. That is just flat out ridiculous when there is such wide, 
significant and bipartisan support for this significant legislation.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot from representatives who clearly 
are articulating with great passion for their own constituents, their 
own farming constituents. But make no mistake about it, if you utilize 
this tool, these interstate dairy compacts, to help your farmers, you 
are hurting the ones I represent. And any extension or further 
expansion of dairy compacts will hurt the farmers I represent even 
more.
  We must find a dairy policy that helps all dairy farmers in this 
country, not just regional interstate dairy compacts that help some.

                              {time}  1300

  There are hard-working Members of this Congress who are seeking to do 
that. I hope that we will have a debate later on a germane amendment to 
this bill that seeks to do precisely that. But, unfortunately, the 
reason this was not germane is because we are using a very archaic tool 
in the form of interstate dairy compacts in order to achieve something 
that should be achieved in another manner, a way to help all dairy 
farmers.
  I serve on the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law, and I wanted to respond to the 
comment that there might not be the sufficient expertise on that 
committee to deal with this issue. The gentleman who just spoke from 
Louisiana and myself both represent dairy farmers. We both sit on that 
subcommittee and sat on it last year when we spent almost 7 hours 
dealing with this issue in markup and debate. The committee has dealt 
with this issue.
  As to those who have made comments about the necessity for a debate 
and a fair vote on this floor on the compacts, I just want to remind 
you how we got compacts in the first place, because my constituents 
never got a fair debate or a fair vote when compacts were first 
approved. When it was stuck into a conference committee report in the 
middle of the night, that issue was never debated on this floor; it 
never got a vote. My constituents have suffered from the results of 
that.
  I feel I have a responsibility to them, and I take that 
responsibility very seriously. We have got to find another way to help 
all dairy farmers and the dairy industry in these United States, other 
than interstate compacts.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to pay a compliment to the 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). They 
found themselves in a very difficult position on this issue in that 
they do not have technical jurisdiction; and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Combest), from my personal perspective, was very gracious in 
bringing some of us in and trying to work a way through this very 
difficult question and one over which, as the Chair has so, may I say, 
Mr. Chairman, eloquently and very thoroughly reviewed and ruled on the 
technicality of germaneness.
  But I want to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from 
Louisiana, who spoke at this very podium a few moments ago with respect 
to the great difference between technical rights and responsibilities. 
Several Members today, including the gentlewoman who preceded me, have 
spoken accurately about the fact that the current compact came about in 
ways which, in their perspective, was not adherent to the normal 
practices of this Congress, certainly this House. As I said before the 
Committee on Rules not so many hours ago, that is an issue on which we 
all agree.
  I have been involved with the compact since my days in the State 
senate in 1985, where I was fortunate enough, from my perspective, to 
have the opportunity to help write the first version of that; and I can 
tell you that I have no joy in the fact that the Northeast Compact 
exists as it does today through the process that was followed.
  But I would say to the gentlewoman, and I would say to my friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who also accurately noted the 
process to create this dairy compact, how can you say and complain 
about no debate, and then act very deliberately today to prevent the 
debate?
  There are a lot of things that are points of disagreement on merits. 
We have heard a lot of, as I have heard so many times in the past, Mr. 
Chairman, claims that are laid as fact that are simply untrue; claims 
of effects on consumers, where reports from OMB, reports from the USDA, 
reports from various ACNielsen scanner data, and on

[[Page 18811]]

and on and on, have rejected those arguments. We have heard about 
consumer impacts that are certainly and without question unfounded, and 
on and on and on.
  As much as I would not just welcome, I would relish the chance to 
engage in a debate on those merits so we can lay out the facts and let 
Members decide to vote as they will, we are precluded again this day.
  Speaking now as more of a plea, Mr. Chairman, I take no joy as well 
in the very fact that, as has been related here today, and giving 
credit to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin about the pain that dairy 
farmers are feeling across this Nation, including her State and her 
region, and, as I have been saying on the floor of this House now for 
at least the past 4 years, I very much want to work with any Member to 
try to do everything we can to help all dairy farmers, because they are 
alike, they are hard-working individuals, they need assistance, and, 
frankly, we need to help them, because they help us so much.
  But the inability for those of us to have the opportunity on the 
floor of the people's House for just a debate and just an honest, open 
vote to decide this issue, creates frustration that I doubt few can 
truly comprehend.
  It is with great sadness I stand here today, Mr. Chairman, but with 
no animosity, and, again, with a plea to those who are in a position to 
effect a change in the developments of this day, that we be provided 
that opportunity as Members rightfully elected from our individual 
districts.
  In closing, again, a word of appreciation and friendship to the 
chairman and the ranking member.


     Amendment No. 32 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will 
designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas:
       At the end of Subtitle C of title VII (page 313, after line 
     10), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   FOR THE DEVELOPING WORLD.

       (a) Grant Program.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish a program to award grants to entities described in 
     subsection (b) for the development of agricultural 
     biotechnology with respect to the developing world. The 
     Secretary shall administer and oversee the program through 
     the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department of 
     Agriculture.
       (b) Partnerships.--(1) In order to be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section, the grantee must be a participating 
     institution of higher education, a nonprofit organization, or 
     consortium of for profit institutions with in-country 
     agricultural research institutions.
       (2) A participating institution of higher education shall 
     be an historically black or land-grant college or university, 
     an Hispanic serving institution, or a tribal college or 
     university that has agriculture or the biosciences in its 
     curricula.
       (c) Competitive Award.--Grants shall be awarded under this 
     section on a merit-reviewed competitive basis.
       (d) Use of Funds.--The activities for which the grant funds 
     may be expended include the following:
       (1) Enhancing the nutritional content of agricultural 
     products that can be grown in the developing world to address 
     malnutrition through biotechnology.
       (2) Increasing the yield and safety of agricultural 
     products that can be grown in the developing world through 
     biotechnology.
       (3) Increasing through biotechnology the yield of 
     agricultural products that can be grown in the developing 
     world that are drought and stress-resistant.
       (4) Extending the growing range of crops that can be grown 
     in the developing world through biotechnology.
       (5) Enhancing the shelf-life of fruits and vegetables grown 
     in the developing world through biotechnology.
       (6) Developing environmentally sustainable agricultural 
     products through biotechnology.
       (7) Developing vaccines to immunize against life-
     threatening illnesses and other medications that can be 
     administered by consuming genetically engineered agricultural 
     products.
       (e) Funding Source.--Of the funds deposited in the Treasury 
     account known as the Initiative for Future Agriculture and 
     Food Systems on October 1, 2003, and each October 1 
     thereafter through October 1, 2007, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall use $5,000,000 during each of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008 to carry out this section.

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer 
this amendment for myself, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) to encourage research 
and development of agriculture biotechnology with respect to the 
developing world.
  Agricultural biotechnology offers innovative solutions to some of the 
most intractable problems facing the developing world, such as hunger, 
malnutrition and disease. Many of us are familiar with the newly 
developed strain of golden rice that was developed by plant scientists 
to have increased vitamin A and iron content. Vitamin A deficiency 
causes more than 1 million childhood deaths each year, and is the 
single most prevalent cause of blindness among children in the 
developing world.
  Golden rice is only the beginning of the potential benefits of 
biotechnology for the developing world. Biotechnology can help 
developing countries produce higher crop yields while using fewer 
pesticides and herbicides, and can also promote sustainable 
agriculture, leading to food and economic security. By increasing crop 
yields, the amount of land that needs to be farmed is reduced.
  Biotechnology can also improve the health of citizens of developing 
countries by combatting illness. Substantial progress has been made in 
the developed world on vaccines against life-threatening illnesses; but 
unfortunately, infrastructure limitations often hinder the 
effectiveness of traditional vaccination methods in some parts of the 
developing words. For example, many vaccines must be kept refrigerated 
until they are injected. Even if a health clinic has electricity and is 
able to deliver effective vaccines, the cost of multiple needles can 
hinder vaccination efforts. Additionally, the improper use of 
hypodermic needles can spread HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. 
Biotechnology offers a prospect of orally delivering vaccines to 
immunize against life-threatening illnesses through agriculture 
products in a safe and effective manner.
  Because of the immense potential of agriculture biotechnology to help 
solve some of the developing world's most serious problems, I am 
offering this amendment that will establish a grant program under the 
Secretary of Agriculture to encourage research and development of 
agriculture biotechnology with respect to the developing world.
  The amendment calls for $5 million per year for 5 years, beginning in 
fiscal year 2004. Eligible grant recipients include historically black 
colleges and land grant colleges or universities, Hispanic serving 
institutions, and tribal colleges and universities. Nonprofit 
organizations and a consortia of for-profit institutions with in-
country research institutions are also eligible. Grants will be awarded 
on a competitive merit-reviewed basis.
  I feel that this effort will go a long way in helping to provide food 
in an independent manner for our developing countries, as well as 
combatting disease.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding, and 
I appreciate her leadership on this extremely important issue.
  Certainly agricultural biotechnology, such as golden rice, which is a 
product with enhanced vitamin A, already is being used to solve 
problems of childhood blindness among cultures whose diets are heavily 
dependent upon rice but would normally be deficient in this important 
vitamin; and I think this is just one example of some of the benefits 
that can come from biotechnology.
  As I believe our staffs have discussed, there are some technical 
issues regarding the structure of the amendment which we would like to 
work with the gentlewoman on as we proceed through conference. The 
gentlewoman has been

[[Page 18812]]

very agreeable to do that, and I appreciate that.
  I will just say that the committee is prepared to accept the 
amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, 
I thank the gentleman very much, and thanks also to the ranking member 
for his hard work on this bill. I ask for support for this measure.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to the dairy compact. I do want 
to talk about the sadness that I feel about what has happened to the 
Northeast area compact. I understand the ruling, and we were pretty 
sure before we got here that it was going to be ruled out of order. But 
I do nonetheless want to strongly express my support for this 
amendment.
  It seems that the Congress giveth and the Congress taketh away; and 
once again, the dairy farmers that I have been working with in the 15 
years I have been here are going to be in serious trouble once again.
  The dairy compact has been instrumental in helping dairy farmers not 
only in New York. We are not selfish enough to ask for anything just 
for ourselves. But it helps people across the country, because all they 
do is establish a minimum safety net price to be paid to dairy 
producers on Class I milk only.
  Just as milk does the body good, the dairy compact does the economy 
and the dairy farmer good. Dairy is important to the entire Northeast 
and the rest of the country because of the economic contributions it 
makes, both in dollars and jobs. Without the Northeast Dairy Compact, 
thousands of dairy farmers will be forced out of business and consumers 
will suffer increased prices as a reflection of the forced 
transportation costs.
  In addition to helping family farmers stay afloat, the Northeast 
Dairy Compact has helped save farmland that would have normally been 
lost to urban sprawl. For many of us, there is nothing more heart 
breaking than seeing wonderful farmland and dairyland going under the 
bulldozer. As a sign of odd bedfellows, both dairy farmers and 
environmentalists have come together to support dairy compacts.
  Again, I am proud to join my Northeast colleagues in support of not 
only continuing the Northeast dairy compact, but expanding it.
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Johnson-Payne-Watson amendment to H.R. 2646 the ``Farm Bill''. This 
amendment establishes a grant program under the Secretary of 
Agriculture to support research and development of American programs in 
agricultural biotechnology. Information provided by these programs can 
address the food and economic needs of the developing world.
  Biotechnology can help developing countries produce higher crop 
yields while using fewer pesticides and herbicides. Biotechnology can 
also promote sustainable agriculture, leading to food and economic 
security. Biotechnology offers the prospect of delivering vaccines to 
immunize against life-threatening illnesses through agricultural 
products in a safe and effective manner. Advances in biotechnology can 
overcome the infrastructure and cost limitations faced by traditional 
vaccination methods in the developing world.
  One obstacle for biotechnology in the developing world is the 
capacity of scientific organizations and public funding for 
agricultural research. For example, Africa's crop production is the 
lowest in the world. 200 million people on the African continent alone 
are chronically malnourished. Increased funding for international 
programs from the United States would have a great impact on the 
problem. Eligible grant recipients include historically black colleges 
and universities, land grant colleges, Hispanic-serving institutions, 
and tribal colleges, or universities. Non-profit, for profit, and other 
in-country agricultural research centers are also eligible.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote for vitamin-enhanced 
foods, higher in protein, fruits and vegetables with longer shelf 
lives, reduced rate of habitat destruction, increased crop yields and 
sustainable agriculture. These are just a few benefits that would 
result from the $5 million per for 5 years, beginning in fiscal year 
2004. Vote ``yes'' on the Johnson-Payne-Watson Amendment to H.R. 2646.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there any Member that wishes to speak on 
the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson)?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a comment about the dairy compact. The dairy 
compact should be extended during the renegotiation of the process 
while we deal with the issues of stabilizing the infrastructure, the 
important infrastructure, that supports not only the dairy industry at 
large, but, more importantly, the farm, the dairy farm, in many places 
where you find it around the diverse landscape of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
speaking in favor of the Northeast Dairy Compact.
  I rise today also in support of the compact for a number of reasons. 
As I stand here today, approximately 11 years after offering my first 
amendment as a Member of Congress to the 1990 Farm Bill, a dairy 
provision, I never envisioned that it would be this difficult to get a 
vote on an issue of such great importance to the farmers not only of my 
district, but throughout the country.
  As many of my colleagues wait in anticipation of an up-or-down vote 
on the extension and expansion of the Northeast Dairy Compact, I recall 
it has been almost 2 years now since I stood in this Chamber and 
announced my opposition to the agriculture appropriations bill, a 
committee of which I am a member. At the same time, we had assurances 
all the way along through subcommittee, full committee, and then going 
into conference, that we would be able to address the dairy issue; but 
unfortunately, that was denied us also. In fact, the conference never 
actually concluded its work. We did not even have the opportunity to 
offer amendments or to debate these critical issues.
  As the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out, I did offer an 
amendment in the 2002 Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee but 
withdrew it at the request of the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), in hopes of getting consideration 
of the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary. The Committee on the 
Judiciary has objected to this amendment and have claimed jurisdiction, 
and they have said it is not germane. If it is the responsibility of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, why do they offer to hold no hearings? 
Why did they propose no legislation? Why did they let the clock run 
out? Why did they let the clock run out not only on the dairy compact, 
but on thousands of farmers all over the country? The clock is also 
running out on my New York dairy farmers. In just 5 years, we have gone 
from 10,000 to just over 7,000 dairy farms.
  As many of my colleagues will point out today, dairy compacts are the 
best available safety net for producers of class 1 drinking milk. They 
are governed by a commission of consumers and processors and farmers to 
ensure a fresh local supply and a fair price.
  I think the biggest benefit of compacts is they do not cost the 
taxpayer one single dollar. Payments come from the milk market, they 
are countercyclical, and are made to farmers only when the prices fall 
below the marketing order price.
  We should recognize the initiative of 25 States who voted to 
authorize dairy compacts for their farmers and for their consumers at 
no expense to the Federal Government. We should embrace their reactions 
and continue a program that returned $140 million in over-order 
payments since its inception to farmers in the Northeast.
  Many factors cause farmers to go out of business, including health, 
lack of interested parties to continue the business, nonstop work 
schedule, or land development opportunities. By providing a more 
livable income, the compact addresses one factor, among many others, 
that encourages farmers to keep farming. For farmers able, willing, and 
interested in continuing dairy

[[Page 18813]]

farming, compacts provide a reliable source of assistance. This is 
critical as dairy farmers are key components to the survival of our 
rural communities.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) 
and the rest of the forces on this Congress from across the country who 
have risen to support the dairy compact.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not speak to the discussion of the point of 
order, and I commend my colleagues who did get up and speak for so 
doing. We did know what the ruling was going to be, but nevertheless, 
the discussion was critically important. To think that a dairy compact 
could not be discussed in the context of this bill really has no 
description. I think we understand why this came about, and it really 
is discouraging in the sense that this is the people's House. As far as 
I understand, dairy farmers around the country make up the population 
of the United States. They are the people and they ought to have an 
opportunity to have their interests, their concerns, their 
frustrations, their livelihood, their economics discussed in this body.
  In terms of my own State of Connecticut, this compact is vital. It is 
vital to the existence of our dairy farms, each one of them a small 
family farm. And, like others who have spoken here this afternoon, this 
is vital to a way of life that is being jeopardized.
  The compact serves as a safety net for these dairy farmers by 
maintaining stable milk prices for them over the course of a year. In 
the year 2000, it returned $4.8 million in income back to Connecticut's 
farmers. This is an average of about $21,000 per farmer. These dollars 
are helped to reverse a serious, long-term trend in my State: the loss 
of family farms.
  Since the compact, there has been no overproduction in New England. 
In fact, there has been a decrease in milk production, whereas other 
parts of the country have witnessed dramatic increases. Over 99 percent 
of CCC purchases of surplus dairy products came from the Midwest and 
the West.
  The compact costs the taxpayer nothing, as my colleagues have pointed 
out. Payments come from the milk market and are only made to farmers 
when the compact commission price is below the Federal milk marketing 
price. So, in most months, farmers do not receive compact payments.
  I would just say to my colleagues, it is truly unfortunate when, in 
this body, we cannot discuss an issue that is of grave concern to 
farmers in this country. The dairy farmers are part of this effort. We 
have today excluded them from the opportunity to have their economic 
crisis defended when just about every other economic crisis of any 
group in this Nation gets a hearing, gets time on the floor, and gets 
substantial quantities of money to make themselves whole. Shame on this 
House for ignoring this country's dairy farmers.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their 
consideration here today. I would like to thank my 20 colleagues that 
have spoken on behalf of dairy compacts. We have shown that they are 
good for jobs, they are good for the rural economy, they are good for 
the environment, because we know that when that milk production is 
spread out across the country, instead of in great cattle-feeding 
operations, it is spread out across the country, it is good for the 
environment. We know it is good for food safety, and it is a weapon 
against bioterrorism, because when the food supply is spread out close 
to the consuming public and not in one location or two locations across 
the country, we are much more flexible.
  This is an issue whose time has come. The New England dairy compact 
has been an experiment that worked and it has proven to us it worked. 
Believe me, I am not a theorist. I am a hard-nosed businessman that was 
in business for 30 years before I came to this Chamber, and I do not 
believe in theory, I believe in practice.
  The New England dairy compact has worked. We have shown that there 
are overwhelmingly 25 State legislatures that want this. We have 
cosponsors, 165 of them, from 30 States in the Nation. The time has 
come that we need to get around the procedural rules of this House that 
make ridiculous statements that milk and farm issues are not on the 
farm bill, they are on the judiciary bill. We need to revisit some of 
these things. We need to show the United States of America and our 
hardworking farmers that we are interested in what they do and we are 
interested in a strong, fresh, stable supply of drinking milk. It is 
time to bring this issue to a head.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Boehlert

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Strike title II and insert the following:

                         TITLE II--CONSERVATION

                Subtitle A--Farm and Ranch Preservation

     SEC. 201. FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       Section 388 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3830 note) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 388. FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment and Purpose.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Secretary'') shall carry out a farmland protection program 
     for the purpose of protecting farm and ranch lands with 
     prime, unique, or other productive uses and agricultural 
     lands that contain historic or archaeological resources, by 
     limiting the nonagricultural uses of the lands. Under the 
     program, the Secretary may provide matching grants to 
     eligible entities described in subsection (d) to facilitate 
     their purchase of--
       ``(1) permanent conservation easements in such lands; or
       ``(2) conservation easements or other interests in such 
     lands when the lands are subject to a pending offer from a 
     State or local government.
       ``(b) Conservation Plan.--Any highly erodible land for 
     which a conservation easement or other interest is purchased 
     using funds made available under this section shall be 
     subject to the requirements of a conservation plan that 
     requires, at the option of the Secretary of Agriculture, the 
     conversion of the cropland to less intensive uses.
       ``(c) Maximum Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost 
     of purchasing a conservation easement under subsection (a)(1) 
     may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of purchasing the 
     easement.
       ``(d) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `eligible entity' means any of the following:
       ``(1) An agency of a State or local government.
       ``(2) A federally recognized Indian tribe.
       ``(3) Any organization that is organized for, and at all 
     times since its formation has been operated principally for, 
     1 or more of the conservation purposes specified in clause 
     (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 170(h)(4)(A) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and--
       ``(A) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code;
       ``(B) is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the 
     Code; and
       ``(C) is described in paragraph (2) of section 509(a) of 
     the Code, or paragraph (3) of such section, but is controlled 
     by an organization described in paragraph (2) of such 
     section.
       ``(e) Grant Factors.--Among the factors the Secretary shall 
     consider in making grants under this section, the Secretary 
     shall consider the extent to which States are encouraging or 
     adopting measures to protect farmland and ranchland from 
     conversion to non-agricultural uses.
       ``(f) Title; Enforcement.--An eligible entity may hold 
     title to a conservation easement purchased using grant funds 
     provided under subsection (a)(1) and enforce the conservation 
     requirements of the easement.
       ``(g) State Certification.--As a condition of the receipt 
     by an eligible entity of a grant under subsection (a)(1), the 
     attorney general of the State in which the conservation 
     easement is to be purchased using the grant funds shall 
     certify that the conservation easement to be purchased is in 
     a form that is sufficient, under the laws of the State, to 
     achieve the purposes of the farmland protection program and 
     the terms and conditions of the grant.
       ``(h) Funding.--
       ``(1) Use of commodity credit corporation funds.--The 
     Secretary shall use not more than $100,000,000 in fiscal year 
     2002, $200,000,000 in fiscal year 2003, $350,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2004, $450,000,000 in fiscal year 2005, and 
     $500,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011, of 
     the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out 
     this section.
       ``(2) Limitation on technical assistance.--To provide 
     technical assistance to

[[Page 18814]]

     carry out this section, the Secretary may use not more than 
     10 percent of the amount made available for any fiscal year 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(i) Grants and Assistance To Enhance Farm Viability.--For 
     each year for which funds are available for the program under 
     this section, the Secretary may use not more than $10,000,000 
     to provide matching market development grants and technical 
     assistance to farm and ranch operators who participate in the 
     program. As a condition of receiving such a grant, the 
     grantee shall provide an amount equal to the grant from non-
     Federal sources.''.

     SEC. 202. SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS.

       Section 2501(a)(3) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
     and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$15,000,000 
     from the Commodity Credit Corporation''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Any agency of the 
     Department of Agriculture may participate jointly in any 
     grant or contract entered in furtherance of the objectives of 
     this section if it agreed that the objectives of the grant or 
     contract will further the authorized programs of the 
     contributing agency.''.

         Subtitle B--Environmental Stewardship On Working Lands

     SEC. 211. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.

       Section 1240 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``to--'' and all that follows through 
     ``provides'' and inserting ``to provide'';
       (2) inserting ``air'' after ``that face the most serious 
     threats to'';
       (3) by redesignating the subparagraphs (A) through (D) that 
     follow the matter amended by paragraph (2) of this section as 
     paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively;
       (4) by moving each of such redesignated provisions 2 ems to 
     the left; and
       (5) by striking ``farmers and ranchers'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``producers''.

     SEC. 212. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 1240A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa-1) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``nonindustrial private forest land,'' 
     before ``and other land''; and
       (B) by striking all after ``poses a serious threat to'' and 
     inserting ``air, soil, water, or related resources.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, including 
     nonindustrial private forestry'' before the period.

     SEC. 213. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Reauthorization.--Section 1240B(a)(1) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''.
       (b) Incentive Payments.--Section 1240B of such Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3839aa-2) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Watershed Quality Incentive Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall create a program to 
     improve water quality in individual watersheds nationwide. 
     Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the program 
     shall be administered in accordance with the terms of the 
     Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
       ``(2) Consistency with watershed plan.--In allocating funds 
     under this subsection, the Secretary shall consider the 
     extent to which an application for the funds is consistent 
     with a locally developed watershed plan, in addition to the 
     other factors established by section 1240C.
       ``(3) Contracts.--The Secretary shall enter into contracts 
     in accordance with this section with producers whose 
     activities affect water quality, including the quality of 
     public drinking water supplies, to implement and maintain 
     nutrient management, pest management, soil erosion practices, 
     and other conservation activities that protect water quality 
     and protect human health. The contracts shall--
       ``(A) describe the nutrient management, pest management or 
     soil loss practices to be implemented, maintained, or 
     improved;
       ``(B) contain a schedule of implementation;
       ``(C) address water quality priorities of the watershed in 
     which the operation is located to the greatest extent 
     possible; and
       ``(D) contain such other terms as the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate.
       ``(4) Voluntary water quality benefits evaluation.--On 
     approval of the producer, the Secretary may include the cost 
     of water quality benefits evaluation as part of a contract 
     entered into under this section.
       ``(5) Drinking water suppliers pilot program.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot 
     program in 15 watersheds to improve water quality in 
     cooperation with local water utilities.
       ``(B) Pilot program.--The Secretary shall select the 
     watersheds and make available funds to be allocated to 
     producers in partnership with drinking water utilities in the 
     watersheds, provided that drinking water utilities measure 
     water quality and target incentives payments to improve water 
     quality.
       ``(6) Nutrient reduction pilot program.--The Secretary 
     shall use up to $100,000,000 annually of the funds provided 
     under this subsection in 5 impaired watersheds each year to 
     provide incentives for agricultural producers to reduce 
     nitrogen and phosphorous applications by at least 15 percent 
     below the average rates used by comparable farms in the 
     State. Incentive payments shall reflect the extent to which 
     producers reduce nitrogen and phosphorous applications.
       ``(7) Recognition of state efforts.--The Secretary shall 
     recognize the financial contribution of States, among other 
     factors, during the allocation of funding under this 
     subsection.''.
       (c) Non-Federal Assistance.--Section 1240B(g) of such Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(g)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``drinking water utility'' after 
     ``forestry agency,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, cost-share payments, and incentives'' 
     after ``technical assistance''.

     SEC. 214. EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND PAYMENTS.

       Section 1240C of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa-3) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1240C. EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND PAYMENTS.

       ``The Secretary shall establish a ranking process and 
     benefits index to prioritize technical assistance, cost-share 
     payments, and incentives payments to producers to maximize 
     soil and water quality and wildlife habitat and other 
     environmental benefits per dollar expended. The ranking 
     process shall be weighted to ensure that technical 
     assistance, cost-share payments, and incentives are provided 
     to small or socially-disadvantaged farmers (as defined in 
     section 8(a)(5) of the Small Business Act). The Secretary 
     shall consult with local, State, and Federal public and 
     private entities to develop the ranking process and benefits 
     index.''.

     SEC. 215. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.

       Section 1240G of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3839aa-7) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting 
     ``$30,000''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting 
     ``$150,000'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) to share the cost of digesters.''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (c).

     SEC. 216. REAUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING.

       Section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3841(a)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2011''.

     SEC. 217. FUNDING.

       Section 1241(b)(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3841(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$130,000,000'' and all that follows 
     through ``2002'' and inserting ``$200,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2001, $1,000,000,000 in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and 
     $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2011'';
       (2) by inserting ``(other than under section 1240B(h))'' 
     before the period; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``In addition, the 
     Secretary shall make available for the program under section 
     1240B(h), $450,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 
     $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $650,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2005, and $700,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2011, to provide incentive payments to producers who 
     implement watershed quality incentive contracts.''.

     SEC. 218. ALLOCATION FOR LIVESTOCK AND OTHER CONSERVATION 
                   PRIORITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1241(b)(2) of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''; and
       (2) by inserting ``(other than under section 1240B(h))'' 
     before ``shall''.
       (b) Agricultural Sustainability.--Section 1241(b) of such 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 3841(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Targeting of practices to promote agricultural 
     sustainability.--
       ``(A) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall attempt to dedicate at least 10 percent of the funding 
     in this subsection to each of the following practices to 
     promote agricultural sustainability:
       ``(i) Managed grazing.
       ``(ii) Innovative manure management.
       ``(iii) Surface and groundwater conservation through 
     improved irrigation efficiency and other practices.
       ``(iv) Pesticide and herbicide reduction, including 
     practices that reduce direct human exposure.
       ``(B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
       ``(i) Managed grazing.--The term `managed grazing' means 
     practices which frequently rotate animals on grazing lands to 
     enhance plant health, limit soil erosion, protect ground and 
     surface water quality, or benefit wildlife.
       ``(ii) Innovative manure management.--The term `innovative 
     manure management' means manure management technologies 
     which--

       ``(I) eliminate the discharge of animal waste to surface 
     and groundwaters through direct discharge, seepage, and 
     runoff;
       ``(II) substantially eliminate atmospheric emissions of 
     ammonia;

[[Page 18815]]

       ``(III) substantially eliminate the emission of odor;
       ``(IV) substantially eliminate the release of disease-
     transmitting vectors and pathogens;
       ``(V) substantially eliminate nutrient heavy metal 
     contamination; or
       ``(VI) encourage reprocessing and cost-effective 
     transportation of animal waste.

       ``(ii) Improved irrigation efficiency.--The term `improved 
     irrigation efficiency' means the use of new or upgraded 
     irrigation systems that conserve water, including the use 
     of--

       ``(I) spray jets or nozzles which improve water 
     distribution efficiency;
       ``(II) irrigation well meters;
       ``(III) surge valves and surge irrigation systems; and
       ``(IV) conversion of equipment from gravity or flood 
     irrigation to sprinkler or drip irrigation, including center 
     pivot systems.''.

              Subtitle C--Preservation of Wildlife Habitat

     SEC. 221. WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension and Funding Increase.--Section 387(c) of the 
     Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (16 
     U.S.C. 3836a) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Funding.--To carry out this section, there shall be 
     made available $200,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 
     $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $450,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2005, $500,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 
     through fiscal year 2009, $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, 
     and $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.''.
       (b) Additional Incentives for Wildlife Conservation.--
     Section 387(b) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3836(b)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, or for other costs relating to wildlife 
     conservation,'' before ``approved by the Secretary''.
       (c) Program Modifications.--Section 387 of such Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3836a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Incentive Payments.--The Secretary may provide 
     incentive payments to landowners in exchange for the 
     implementation of land management practices designed to 
     create or preserve wildlife habitat. The payments may be in 
     an amount and at a rate determined by the Secretary to be 
     necessary to encourage a landowner to engage in the practice.
       ``(e) Funding Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority 
     to landowners whose lands contain important habitat for 
     imperiled species or habitat identified by State conservation 
     plans, where available.
       ``(f) Consultation.--To the extent practicable, the 
     Secretary shall consult with local, State, Federal and 
     private experts, as considered appropriate by the Secretary, 
     to ensure that projects under this section maximize 
     conservation benefits and are regionally equitable.
       ``(g) Acquisition of Easements.--Beginning with fiscal year 
     2003, not more than 10 percent of the funds available shall 
     be used to acquire permanent easements, provided that land 
     enrolled in an easement is not land taken out of agricultural 
     production''.

     SEC. 222. WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Enrollment Authority.--Section 1237(b)(1) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(b)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) Enrollment.--The Secretary shall enroll in the 
     wetlands reserve program a total of not less than 250,000 
     acres in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and not less than 
     250,000 acres in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2011.''.
       (b) Regional Equity.--Section 1237 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3837) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this sentence, the Secretary shall devise a plan 
     to promote wetlands conservation in all regions where 
     opportunities exist for wetlands restoration.''.

     SEC. 223. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Enrollment Authority.--Section 1231 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''; and
       (B) by striking ``and water'' and inserting ``, water, and 
     wildlife'';
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``36,400,000'' and inserting 
     ``45,000,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2011''; and
       (3) in subsection (h)(1), by striking ``and 2002'' and 
     inserting ``through 2011''.
       (b) Eligibility.--Section 1231(b) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3831(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) pasture, hay, and rangeland if the land will be 
     restored as a wetland, or is within 300 feet of a riparian 
     area and will be restored in native vegetation; and''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(i) the lands contribute to the degradation of soil, 
     water, or air quality, or would pose an on-site or off-site 
     environmental threat to soil, water, or air quality if 
     permitted to remain in agricultural production; and
       ``(ii) soil, water, and air quality objectives with respect 
     to the land cannot be achieved under the environmental 
     quality incentives program established under chapter 4;'';
       (B) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) if the Secretary determines that enrollment of the 
     lands would contribute to conservation of ground or surface 
     water.
     For purposes of the program under this subchapter, buffer 
     strips on lands used for the production of fruits, 
     vegetables, sod, orchards, or specialty crops shall be 
     considered cropland.''.
       (c) Environmentally Sensitive Lands and Buffer Strips.--
     Section 1231(d) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``Until December 31, 2007, 
     of the acreage authorized for enrollment, not less than 
     7,000,000 acres shall be used to enroll environmentally 
     sensitive lands through the continuous enrollment program and 
     the conservation reserve enhancement program.''.
       (d) Limited Permanent Easement Authority.--Section 1231(e) 
     of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3831(e)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) Permanent easements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary may enroll up to 3,000,000 acres in the 
     conservation reserve using permanent easements to protect 
     critically important environmentally sensitive lands 
     (including 1,000,000 acres for isolated wetlands) and 
     habitats such as native prairies, native shrublands, small 
     wetlands, springs, seeps, fens, and other rare and declining 
     habitats. The terms of the easement shall be consistent with 
     section 1232(a).
       ``(B) Limitations on transferability.--The Secretary may 
     transfer a permanent easement established under subparagraph 
     (A) to a State or local government or a qualified nonprofit 
     conservation organization. The holder of such a permanent 
     easement may not transfer the easement to an entity other 
     than a State or local government or a qualified nonprofit 
     conservation organization.''.
       (e) Continuous Enrollment of Buffer Strips.--Section 1231 
     of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3831) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(i) Continuous Enrollment of Buffer Strips.--The 
     Secretary shall allow continuous enrollment of buffers whose 
     width and vegetation is designed to provide significant 
     wildlife or water quality benefits, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(j) Irrigated Lands.--Irrigated lands shall be enrolled 
     at irrigated land rates unless the Secretary determines that 
     other compensation is appropriate.
       ``(k) Exception to Payment Limitation.--Payments made in 
     connection with the enrollment of lands pursuant to the 
     continuous enrollment or the conservation reserve enhancement 
     program shall not be subject to any payment limitations under 
     section 1239c(f)(1).
       ``(l) Limited Exceptions to Prohibitions on Economic 
     Uses.--Notwithstanding the prohibitions on economic use on 
     lands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program under 
     section 1232(a), the Secretary may permit on such lands the 
     collection of native seeds and the use of wind turbines, so 
     long as such activities preserve the conservation values of 
     the land and take into account wildlife and wildlife 
     habitat.''.

     SEC. 224. CONSERVATION OF PRIVATE GRAZING LANDS.

       Section 386 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 2005b) is amended by striking 
     subsection (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Incentive Payments.--The Secretary may enter into 5-
     year, 10-year and 20-year contracts with landowners to 
     provide financial assistance for landowner efforts to improve 
     the ecological health of grazing lands, including practices 
     that reduce erosion, employ prescribed burns, restore 
     riparian area, control or eliminate exotic species, 
     reestablish native grasses, or otherwise enhance wildlife 
     habitat.
       ``(g) Authorization of Funding.--The Secretary shall make 
     available $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002 
     through 2011 from the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry 
     out this section.''.

     SEC. 225. GRASSLAND RESERVE AND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

       Chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830-3837f) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

       ``Subchapter D--Grassland Reserve and Enhancement Program

     ``SEC. 1238. GRASSLAND RESERVE AND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     program to use contracts and easements to protect 3,000,000 
     acres of environmentally critical grasslands, shrubs, and 
     blufflands. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, the Secretary 
     shall conduct outreach to inform the public of the program.
       ``(b) Enrollment Conditions.--
       ``(1) Maximum enrollment.--The total number of acres 
     enrolled in the program shall not exceed 3,000,000 acres. The 
     Secretary shall enroll lands using permanent easements to 
     meet demand, but in no case shall more than 50 percent of the 
     available acreage be enrolled in permanent easements,

[[Page 18816]]

     and the balance shall be enrolled in contracts through which 
     the Secretary shall provide assistance and incentive 
     payments.
       ``(2) Terms of contracts or easements.--The Secretary shall 
     enroll in the program for a willing owner not less than 100 
     contiguous acres of land west of the 100th meridian or not 
     less than 50 contiguous acres of land east of the 90th 
     meridian through 10-year or 20-year contracts or permanent 
     easements.
       ``(c) Eligible Land.--Land shall be eligible to be enrolled 
     in the program if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(1) the land is natural grass or shrubland;
       ``(2) the land--
       ``(A) is located in an area that has been historically 
     dominated by natural grass or shrubland; and
       ``(B) has potential to serve as habitat for animal or plant 
     populations of significant ecological value if the land is 
     restored to natural grass or shrubland; or
       ``(3) the land is adjacent to land described in paragraph 
     (1) or (2), and the Secretary determines it is necessary to 
     maintain or restore native grassland or shrubland under this 
     section.
       ``(d) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--To 
     carry out this section, there shall be available for each of 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2011 such sums as may be necessary 
     from the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation.

     ``SEC. 1238A. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS.

       ``(a) Requirements of Landowner.--To be eligible to enroll 
     land in the program, the owner of the land shall--
       ``(1) agree to comply with the terms of the contract and 
     related restoration agreements; and
       ``(2) agree to the suspension of any existing cropland base 
     and allotment history for the land under any program 
     administered by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Terms of Contract or Easement.--A contract or 
     easement under subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) permit--
       ``(A) common grazing practices on the land in a manner that 
     is consistent with maintaining the viability of natural grass 
     and shrub species indigenous to that locality;
       ``(B) haying, mowing, or haying for seed production, except 
     that such uses shall not be permitted until after the end of 
     the nesting and brood-rearing season for birds in the local 
     area which are in significant decline or are conserved 
     pursuant to State or Federal law, as determined by the 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service State conservationist;
       ``(C) construction of fire breaks and fences, including 
     placement of the posts necessary for fences; and
       ``(D) practices that reduce erosion, restore native 
     species, control and eradicate exotic species, enhance 
     habitat for native wildlife, and improve the health of 
     riparian areas;
       ``(2) prohibit--
       ``(A) forestry and the production of any agricultural 
     commodity (other than hay);
       ``(B) unless allowed under subsection (d), the conduct of 
     any other activity that would disturb the surface of the land 
     covered by the contract or easement; and
       ``(C) the development of homes, businesses or other 
     structures on land subject to the contract or easement; and
       ``(3) include such additional provisions as the Secretary 
     determines are appropriate to carry out or facilitate the 
     administration of this subchapter.
       ``(c) Ranking Applications.--
       ``(1) Establishment of criteria.--The Secretary shall 
     establish criteria to evaluate and rank applications for 
     contracts under this subchapter.
       ``(2) Emphasis.--In establishing the criteria, the 
     Secretary shall emphasize support for native grass and 
     shrubland, grazing operations, and plant and animal 
     biodiversity.
       ``(d) Restoration Agreements.--The Secretary shall 
     prescribe the terms by which grassland that is subject to a 
     contract under the program shall be restored. The agreement 
     shall include duties of the land owner and the Secretary, 
     including the Federal share of restoration payments and 
     technical assistance.
       ``(e) Violations.--On the violation of the terms or 
     conditions of a contract or restoration agreement entered 
     into under this section--
       ``(1) the contract shall remain in force; and
       ``(2) the Secretary may require the owner to refund all or 
     part of any payments received by the owner under this 
     subchapter, with interest on the payments as determined 
     appropriate by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 1238B. DUTIES OF SECRETARY.

       ``(a) In General.--In return for the granting of a contract 
     by an owner under this subchapter, the Secretary shall make 
     contract payments and payments of the Federal share of 
     restoration and provide technical assistance to the owner in 
     accordance with this section. The Secretary shall base the 
     amount paid for an easement on the fair market value of the 
     easement.
       ``(b) Federal Share of Restoration.--The Secretary shall 
     make payments to the owner of not more than--
       ``(1) in the case of virgin (never cultivated) grassland, 
     90 percent of the costs of carrying out measures and 
     practices necessary to restore grassland functions and 
     values; or
       ``(2) in the case of restored grassland, 75 percent of such 
     costs.
       ``(c) Technical Assistance.--A landowner who is receiving a 
     benefit under this subchapter shall be eligible to receive 
     technical assistance in accordance with section 1243(d) to 
     assist the owner or operator in carrying out a contract 
     entered into under this subchapter.
       ``(d) Payments to Others.--If an owner who is entitled to a 
     payment under this subchapter dies, becomes incompetent, is 
     otherwise unable to receive the payment, or is succeeded by 
     another person who renders or completes the required 
     performance, the Secretary shall make the payment, in 
     accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary and 
     without regard to any other provision of law, in such manner 
     as the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable in light 
     of all the circumstances.''.

                      Subtitle D--Organic Farming

     SEC. 231. PROGRAM TO ASSIST TRANSITION TO ORGANIC FARMING.

       (a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall 
     expand the National Organic Program to include a voluntary 
     program to assist agricultural producers in making the 
     transition from conventional to organic farming and to assist 
     existing organic farmers. Under the program, the Secretary 
     may make payments to cover all or a portion of--
       (1) production and marketing losses;
       (2) conservation practices related to organic food 
     production;
       (3) certification costs;
       (4) technical assistance by qualified third parties;
       (5) educational materials; or
       (6) farm-to-consumer market development.
       (b) Limitation on Expenditures.--Payments to individual 
     farm and ranch operators under this section shall not exceed 
     $10,000 per year, and such payments shall not be made to 
     individuals operating a conventional farm or ranch in more 
     than 3 fiscal years.
       (c) Organic Certification Reimbursement Program.--The 
     Secretary shall reimburse producers for the cost of organic 
     certification. To expedite certification, farmers seeking 
     certification shall be eligible for a direct reimbursement of 
     up to $500 by the Secretary of certification costs, so long 
     as producers present an organic certificate and receipt.
       (d) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, there shall be available to the Secretary to 
     carry out this section $20,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 and 
     2003, $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $40,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2008, and $0 for fiscal years 2009 through 2011.

                          Subtitle E--Forestry

     SEC. 241. URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY.

       Section 9(i) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2105(i)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) Funding.--The Secretary shall use $50,000,000 of the 
     funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this 
     section for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2011. In 
     addition, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary not more than $50,000,000 to carry out this section 
     for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2011. As determined 
     by the Secretary, socially disadvantaged foresters shall be 
     eligible for funding under this section.''.

     SEC. 242. WATERSHED FORESTRY INITIATIVE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
     for the purpose of providing financial assistance to enhance 
     the quality of municipal water supplies and to encourage the 
     long-term sustainability of private forestland.
       (b) Easements.--The Secretary shall annually use 
     $75,000,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation to be 
     matched equally by any non-Federal source for each of the 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2011 to acquire permanent easements 
     that promote watershed protection. The Secretary shall 
     establish a system to fairly compensate landowners for the 
     value of an easement entered into under this section.
       (c) Land-Use Practices.--The Secretary shall annually use 
     $25,000,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation for each of 
     the fiscal years 2002 through 2011 to share equally with any 
     non-Federal source the cost of land management practices on 
     nonindustrial forestland that protect municipal drinking 
     water supplies and other conservation purposes. The Secretary 
     shall consider, among other factors, the extent to which 
     projects are identified in a regional or watershed 
     conservation plan. Practices that are eligible for funding 
     under this section include the following:
       (1) Natural forest regeneration.
       (2) Prescribed burns.
       (3) Native species restoration.
       (4) Stream and watershed restoration.
       (5) Road retirement.
       (6) Riparian restoration.
       (7) Other practices that improve water quality and wildlife 
     habitat, as determined by the Secretary.
       (d) Regional and Watershed Planning.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a program to make grants not exceeding $10,000 to 
     develop and implement regional and watershed-based 
     conservation plans to comply with existing

[[Page 18817]]

     laws and meeting water quality standards. The Secretary shall 
     consider, among other factors, the extent to which applicants 
     develop interjurisdictional conservation plans, protect 
     nationally significant resources, engage the public, and 
     demonstrate local support. The Secretary shall use not more 
     than $10,000,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation for 
     each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2011 to carry out this 
     subsection.

                    Subtitle F--Technical Assistance

     SEC. 251. CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Section 6 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590f) is amended--
       (1) by striking the 1st undesignated paragraph and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) The Secretary shall make available $200,000,000 each 
     fiscal year from the Commodity Credit Corporation, and such 
     additional sums as may be appropriated by the Congress, to 
     carry out this Act.''; and
       (2) by desginating the 2nd undesignated paragraph as 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Section 7 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 590g) is amended by 
     striking ``and (7)'' and inserting ``(7) any of the purposes 
     of agricultural conservation programs authorized by Congress, 
     and (8)''.

     SEC. 252. REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.

       Subtitle E of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3841-3843) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before the first unnumbered 
     paragraph;
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (B);
       (3) by moving the newly designated subparagraphs (A) 
     through (B) three ems to the right;
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) For each of fiscal years 1996 through 2011, the 
     Secretary shall use the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for the provision of technical assistance to 
     allow for full reimbursement of actual costs for delivering 
     all conservation programs funded through the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for which technical assistance is required.''.

     SEC. 253. CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY THIRD PARTIES.

       Section 1243(d) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3843(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In the preparation'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--In the preparation''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Establishment of training centers.--To facilitate the 
     training and certification of Federal and non-Federal 
     employees and qualified third parties, the Secretary may 
     establish training centers in the following locations:
       ``(A) Fresno, California.
       ``(B) Platteville, Wisconsin.
       ``(C) Lincoln, Nebraska.
       ``(D) Ithaca, New York.
       ``(E) Pullman, Washington.
       ``(F) Orono, Maine.
       ``(G) Gainesville, Florida.
       ``(H) College Park, Maryland.
       ``(3) Certification of third-party providers.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall, by regulation, establish a system for approving 
     persons to provide technical assistance pursuant to this 
     title. In the system, the Secretary shall give priority to a 
     person who has a memorandum of understanding regarding the 
     provision of technical assistance in place with the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Expertise required.--In prescribing such regulations, 
     the Secretary shall ensure that persons with expertise in the 
     technical aspects of conservation planning, watershed 
     planning, environmental engineering, including commercial 
     entities, qualified nonprofit entities, State or local 
     governments or agencies, and other Federal agencies, are 
     eligible to become approved providers of such technical 
     assistance.
       ``(C) Qualified nonprofit organizations.--Qualified 
     nonprofit organizations shall include organizations whose 
     missions primarily promote the stewardship of working 
     farmland and ranchland.
       ``(4) Quality assurance program.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a program to assess the quality of the technical 
     assistance provided by third parties.''.

     SEC. 254. CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARDS.

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
       (1) revise standards and, when necessary, establish 
     standards for eligible conservation practices to include 
     measurable goals for enhancing natural resources, including 
     innovative practices;
       (2) within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     section, revise the National Handbook of Conservation 
     Practices and field office technical guides; and
       (3) not less frequently than once every 5 years, update the 
     Handbook and technical guides to reflect the best available 
     science.

           Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Conservation Provisions

     SEC. 261. CONSERVATION PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND 
                   EVALUATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a grant 
     program to evaluate the benefits of the conservation programs 
     under title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 and under 
     sections 242 and 262 of this Act.
       (b) Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants to land grant 
     colleges and other research institutions whose applications 
     are highly ranked under subsection (c) to evaluate the 
     economic and environmental benefits of conservation programs, 
     and shall use such research to identify and rank measures 
     needs to improve water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, 
     and other environmental goals of conservation programs.
       (c) Scientific Panels.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     panel of independent scientific experts to review and rank 
     the grant applications submitted under subsection (a).
       (d) Funding.--The Secretary shall use $10,000,000 from the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation for each of fiscal years 2002 
     through 2011 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 262. GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM FOR SOIL EROSION AND 
                   SEDIMENT CONTROL.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     consultation with the Great Lakes Commission created by 
     Article IV of the Great Lakes Basin Compact (82 Stat. 415) 
     and in cooperation other appropriate Federal agencies may 
     carry out the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and 
     Sediment Control.
       (b) Assistance.--In carrying out the Program, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) provide project demonstration grants, provide technical 
     assistance, and carry out information and education programs 
     to improve water quality in the Great Lakes Basin by reducing 
     soil erosion and improving sediment control; and
       (2) provide a priority for projects and activities that 
     directly reduce soil erosion or improve sediment control.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2011.
       (2) Administrative costs.--
       (A) Commission.--The Great Lakes Commission may use not 
     more than 10 percent of the funds made available for a fiscal 
     year under paragraph (1) to pay administrative costs incurred 
     by the Commission in carrying out this section.
       (B) Secretary.--None of the funds made available under 
     paragraph (1) may be used by the Secretary to pay 
     administrative costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying 
     out this section.

               Subtitle H--Conservation Corridor Program

     SEC. 271. CONSERVATION CORRIDOR PROGRAM.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this subtitle is to provide 
     for the establishment of a program that recognizes the 
     leveraged benefit of an ecosystem-based application of the 
     Department of Agriculture conservation programs, addresses 
     the increasing and extraordinary threats to agriculture in 
     many areas of the United States, and recognizes the 
     importance of local and regional involvement in the 
     protection of economically and ecologically important 
     farmlands.
       (b) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture (in this 
     subtitle referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall establish a 
     Conservation Corridor Program through which States, local 
     governments, tribes, and combinations of States may submit, 
     and the Secretary may approve, plans to integrate agriculture 
     and forestry conservation programs of the United States 
     Department of Agriculture with State, local, tribal, and 
     private efforts to address farm preservation, water quality, 
     wildlife, and other conservation needs in critical areas, 
     watersheds, and corridors in a manner that enhances the 
     conservation benefits of the individual programs, tailors 
     programs to State and local needs, and promotes and supports 
     ecosystem and watershed-based conservation.
       (c) Memorandum of Agreement.--On approval of a proposed 
     plan, the Secretary may enter into a memorandum of agreement 
     with a State, a combination of States, local governments, or 
     tribes, that--
       (1) guarantees specific program resources for 
     implementation of the plan;
       (2) establishes different or automatic enrollment criteria 
     than otherwise established by regulation or policy, for 
     specific levels of enrollments of specific conservation 
     programs within the region, if doing so will achieve greater 
     conservation benefits;
       (3) establishes different compensation rates to the extent 
     the parties to the agreement consider justified;
       (4) establishes different conservation practice criteria if 
     doing so will achieve greater conservation benefits;
       (5) provides more streamlined and integrated paperwork 
     requirements; and
       (6) otherwise alters any other requirement established by 
     United States Department of Agriculture policy and regulation 
     to the extent not inconsistent with the statutory 
     requirements and purposes of an individual conservation 
     program.

     SEC. 272. CONSERVATION ENHANCEMENT PLAN.

       (a) Preparation.--To be eligible to participate in the 
     program under this subtitle, a State, combination of States, 
     political subdivision or agency of a State, tribe, or local 
     government shall submit to the Secretary a plan that proposes 
     specific criteria and commitment of resources in the 
     geographic region designated, and describes how the linkage 
     of Federal, State, and local resources will--

[[Page 18818]]

       (1) improve the economic viability of agriculture by 
     protecting contiguous tracts of land;
       (2) improve the ecological integrity of the ecosystems or 
     watersheds within the region by linking land with high 
     ecological and natural resource value; and
       (3) in the case of a multi-State plan, provide a draft 
     memorandum of agreement among entities in each State.
       (b) Submission and Review.--Within 90 days after receipt of 
     the conservation plan, the Secretary shall review the plan 
     and approve it for implementation and funding under this 
     subtitle if the Secretary determines that the plan and 
     memorandum of agreement meet the criteria specified in 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Criteria for Participation.--The Secretary may approve 
     a plan only if, as determined by the Secretary, the plan 
     provides for each of the following:
       (1) Actions taken under the conservation plan are voluntary 
     and require the consent of willing landowners.
       (2) Criteria specified in the plan and memorandum of 
     agreement assure that enrollments in each conservation 
     program incorporated through the plan are of exceptionally 
     high conservation value.
       (3) The program provides benefits greater than the benefits 
     that would likely be achieved through individual application 
     of the federal conservation programs because of such factors 
     as--
       (A) ecosystem- or watershed-based enrollment criteria;
       (B) lengthier or permanent conservation commitments;
       (C) integrated treatment of special natural resource 
     problems, including preservation and enhancement of natural 
     resource corridors; and
       (D) improved economic viability for agriculture.
       (4) Staffing and marketing, considering both Federal and 
     non-Federal resources, are sufficient to assure program 
     success.
       (d) Approval and Implementation.--Within 90 days after 
     approval of a conservation plan, the Secretary shall begin to 
     provide funds for the implementation of the plan.
       (e) Priority.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary 
     shall give priority to multi-State or multi-tribal plans.

     SEC. 273. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Cost-Sharing.--As a further condition on the approval 
     of a conservation plan submitted by a non-Federal interest 
     under section 272, the Secretary shall require the non-
     Federal interest to contribute at least 20 percent of the 
     total cost of the Conservation Corridor Program.
       (b) Exception.--The Secretary may reduce the cost-share 
     requirement in the case of a specific activity under the 
     Conservation Corridor Program on good cause and demonstration 
     that the project or activity is likely to achieve 
     extraordinary natural resource benefits.
       (c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall require that non-
     Federal interests contributing financial resources for the 
     Conservation Corridor Program shall implement streamlined 
     paperwork requirements and other procedures to allow for 
     integration with the Federal programs for participants in the 
     program.
       (d) Reservation of Funds.--The Secretary shall direct funds 
     on a priority basis to the Conservation Corridor Program and 
     to projects in areas identified by the plan.
       (e) Administration.--A State may submit multiple plans, but 
     the Secretary shall assure opportunity for submission by each 
     State. Acreage committed as part of approved Conservation 
     Reserve Enhancement Programs shall be considered acreage of 
     the Conservation Reserve Program committed to a Conservation 
     Enhancement Program.

               Subtitle I--Funding Source and Allocations

     SEC. 281. FUNDING FOR CONSERVATION FUNDING.

       (a) Reduction in Fixed Decoupled Payments and Counter-
     Cyclical Payments.--Notwithstanding sections 104 and 105, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture (in this subtitle referred to as the 
     ``Secretary'') shall reduce by $1,900,000,000 the total 
     amount otherwise required to be paid under such sections in 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, in accordance with 
     this section.
       (b) Maximum Total Payments by Type and Fiscal Year.--In 
     making the reductions required by subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall ensure that--
       (1) the total amount paid under section 104 does not 
     exceed--
       (A) $3,425,000,000 in fiscal year 2002; or
       (B) $4,325,000,000 in any of fiscal years 2003 through 
     2011; and
       (2) the total amount paid under section 105 does not 
     exceed--
       (A) $3,332,000,000 in fiscal year 2003;
       (B) $4,494,000,000 in fiscal year 2004;
       (C) $4,148,000,000 in fiscal year 2005;
       (D) $3,974,000,000 in fiscal year 2006;
       (E) $3,701,000,000 in fiscal year 2007;
       (F) $3,222,000,000 in fiscal year 2008;
       (G) $2,596,000,000 in fiscal year 2009;
       (H) $2,057,000,000 in fiscal year 2010; or
       (I) $1,675,000,000 in fiscal year 2011.
       (c) Limitations to Protect Smaller Farmers, Preserve Trade 
     Agreements, and Ensure Program and Regional Balance.--In 
     making the reductions required by subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) accomplish all of the reductions required with respect 
     to a fiscal year by making pro rata reductions in the amounts 
     otherwise payable under sections 104 and 105 to the 10 
     percent (or, if necessary, such greater percentage as the 
     Secretary may determine) of recipients who would otherwise 
     receive the greatest total payments under such sections in 
     the fiscal year; and
       (2) to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that--
       (A) the resulting payments under such sections pose the 
     least amount of risk to the United States of violating trade 
     agreements to reduce subsidies; and
       (B) the reductions are made in a manner that achieves 
     balance among programs and regions.

     SEC. 282. ALLOCATION OF CONSERVATION FUNDS BY STATE.

       (a) State Allocation.--To the maximum extent practicable in 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, the Secretary, 
     subject to the rules of the conservation programs 
     administered by the Secretary, shall ensure that each State 
     receives at a minimum the State's share of the $1,900,000,000 
     based on the State's share of the total agricultural market 
     value of production, with each State receiving not less than 
     0.52 percent and not more than 7 percent of such amount 
     annually.
       (b) Transition and Unobligated Balances.--If the offices of 
     the United States Department of Agriculture in each 
     respective State cannot expend all funds allocated in this 
     title within 2 consecutive fiscal years for the programs 
     identified in this title, the funds shall be remitted to the 
     Secretary for reallocation as the Secretary deems appropriate 
     among States to address unmet conservation needs through the 
     programs in this title, except that in no event shall these 
     unobligated balances be used to fund technical assistance.
       (c) Regional Equity.--Section 1230 of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Regional Equity.--In carrying out the ECARP, the 
     Secretary shall recognize the importance of regional equity, 
     and the importance of accomplishing many conservation 
     objectives that can sometimes only be achieved on land of 
     high value.''.

                     Subtitle J--Rural Development

     SEC. 291. EXPANSION OF STATE MARKETING PROGRAMS.

       (a) Federal-State Market Incentive Payments.--Section 
     204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 
     1623) is amended by striking ``such sums as he may deem 
     appropriate'' and inserting ``$10,000,000 from the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 
     2011''.
       (b) Market Development Grants.--Section 203(e)(1) of such 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1622(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall transfer to State 
     departments of agriculture and other State marketing offices 
     at least 10 percent of the funds appropriated for a fiscal 
     year for this subsection to facilitate the development of 
     local and regional markets for agricultural products, 
     including direct farm-to-consumer markets.''.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I think by now the thrust of the 
Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is well-known. Our amendment 
would significantly increase the conservation funding in the bill, 
while leaving total farm bill spending essentially unchanged. This 
amendment will protect water quality, preserve open space, foster 
wildlife populations, and increase opportunities for sportsmen, all 
while helping more farmers in more States than the base bill.
  That is why the amendment is supported by a wide range of groups, 
including Ducks Unlimited, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Izaak 
Walton League, groups representing the Nation's water and sewer 
agencies, the National League of Cities, and the League of Conservation 
Voters. Quite simply, our amendment is good environmental policy and 
good agriculture policy.
  This amendment will provide increases for the numerous important 
conservation programs that do not receive significant increases in the 
bill. These programs, like the Wetland Reserve Program and the 
Conservation Reserve Program, which help farmers, especially small 
farmers, have a long waiting list. As the administration's own recent 
report, Taking Stock for a New Century acknowledges, these programs 
could and should help many more farmers work the land, care for the 
land, and protect water quality.
  I represent an agricultural area, and I know from the farmers in my 
own congressional district just how vital and successful these programs 
can be.
  Now, we are going to hear a lot of spurious arguments against this

[[Page 18819]]

amendment, even more than usual, because the chairman has refused to 
agree to a time limit on debate. But the main argument we are going to 
hear is the most ridiculous of all. We are going to hear that this 
amendment would destroy the delicate, carefully crafted balance that 
holds together the underlying bill.
  Let me tell my colleagues bluntly about the way this bill is 
balanced. This is the kind of balance they used to have in Latin 
America dictatorships where all of the leading families got together 
and divided the money equally among themselves to ensure that the rest 
of the public was held at bay. They were called ``banana republics.'' 
Here, I guess, we have a ``cotton republic.'' But the principle is the 
same. The balance in this bill is that all of the big commodity groups 
got together and divided up the spoils without regard to the needs of 
other people or of good public policy.
  Now, just like oligarchies, they are threatening anyone who would 
dare to disagree: food stamp advocates, dairy farmers advocates, you 
name it. There is nothing delicate about the way this bill was put 
together. It was an exercise in raw power.
  Do not take my word for this. Listen to the Bush administration. The 
administration does not support the base bill because, and I quote, 
``It misses the opportunity to modernize farm programs through 
innovative environmental programs; it encourages overproduction, and 
fails to help farmers most in need,'' especially small farmers and 
ranchers. This amendment corrects these deficiencies.
  Our amendment will help more farmers in more States than the base 
bill. Our amendment will encourage innovative environmental practices. 
Our amendment will keep lands in production. Our amendment will target 
assistance to smaller farms who need it the most. Our amendment will 
help protect precious water supplies from coast to coast. In fact, 
commodity payments will still increase significantly with our 
amendment, and 97 percent of American farmers, 97 percent, will receive 
the exact same payments they would under the underlying bill.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It represents true 
balance. It will help farmers and cities protect land and water, 
preserve open space, and keep farms in business. It is fair, it is 
equitable, and it deserves our support.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), who made reference in his opening comments about the fact 
that the Chair would not agree to a time agreement, I might just 
mention that we have been working on this bill for 9 months.
  This bill was reported from committee in July. It has been out there. 
People have had the opportunity to look at our bill. We have only been 
able to look at this very lengthy and complex amendment, offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Kind) for the last 36 hours.
  This amendment has a wide variety of things which we want to make for 
certain that Members of Congress have the opportunity to know are in 
the bill before we, in fact, do vote on it. We will have an opportunity 
to discuss that as the day goes on.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Agriculture is appropriately named. I 
think if we look back at what has occurred over the past 4 years, 
recognizing that we have had virtually record-setting low prices for 
every year for commodities across this country, and why the Congress 
very generously provided an additional $30 billion was a recognition 
that under a program that has not had an adequate safety net, the 
American agricultural economy potentially is in peril.
  So we set out 2 years ago to begin to look at what we could do to 
keep the good parts of the current farm bill and to make changes in the 
areas that, in fact, needed changes. We recognize that we cannot be 
regional in our approach. We have to look at the Nation as a whole. We 
have to look at all aspects of legislation, of programs which come 
under our jurisdiction, from food stamps to research to export programs 
to commodity programs to conservation to rural development, to all of 
those things that, in fact, fall under our jurisdiction.
  In almost any other climate, the areas that we have changed in terms 
of conservation would have been considered at least generous. For 
example, in the current program versus the new program, here are the 
comparisons of some of the numbers.
  In conservation reserve, we have moved from 36.4 million acres, a 
$1.5 billion increase, to 39.2 million acres. In wetland reserves, we 
have gone from 1 million acres to 1.5 million acres, with a $1.7 
billion increase. In the environmental quality incentives program, we 
have gone from $1 billion to $12 billion. In water conservation 
programs, there were no programs, and we have gone to $555 million. In 
wildlife habitat incentives programs, we have gone from $62 million to 
$385 million. In farmland protection programs, we have gone from $52 
million to $500 million. There was no grassland reserve program. We 
have gone to a program that will provide 2 million acres to be able to 
come into contracts and easements.
  But the concern that I have about this amendment, let there be no 
question about it, from the approach that we are trying to take to deal 
with American agriculture, this amendment, if passed, would totally 
devastate the bill.
  The reason I say that is because, as we have traveled for the last 2 
years over this country and in every region of the country, and as we 
have had many hearings in our committee over the past several months, 
the one thing which stood out in all of the recommendations that the 
people who were suffering the most under the current program, was the 
need for a countercyclical program. It is the countercyclical program 
that is being attacked in this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Combest was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, a countercyclical program works in such a 
way that if prices are low, there is a safety net which is built into 
the program. I think, to my budget-conscious colleagues, of which I am 
one, this is much more of an honest way to deal with this problem than 
ad hoc disaster bill after disaster bill after disaster bill after 
disaster bill.
  It also gives an opportunity for farmers to plan much better, because 
they know there is a program in place. If prices are high or if prices 
are good, a countercyclical program does not kick in.
  So I would say to my friends who look at this from a spending 
standpoint, under our program, if we achieve what we are hoping for, 
and that is higher commodity prices, we will spend substantially less, 
substantially less than we would by the authors of this amendment, if 
it passed, because this spending will be there, regardless of what 
happens to crops.
  If prices next year or the next year or the next year are extremely 
low, do we not think that we are going to come back to the Congress, 
because there is no mechanism to help in those low-price situations, 
and ask for billions upon billions of dollars?
  Another thing, this amendment also is very unfair, Mr. Chairman, and 
I think it is important to point out a couple of things that sound 
pretty good on the surface, but when we begin to look under a little 
bit, we begin to realize that this is a little inequitable.
  It is great to name the people who get payments. We are only taking 
from the top 5 or 10, percent, or whatever. Let me just mention, for 
one thing, that it is sort of like one robs money where the bank is; 
the reason some people get more money is because they produce more. 
They are more at risk. They are the ones who provide the food and fiber 
for this country. They are not hobby farmers, they make their living

[[Page 18820]]

farming. They are heavily at risk every year with weather and with 
pricing conditions over which they have no control, and with huge 
increases in the price of production.
  Let us talk about how inequitable this is. If we take and separate 
this across the top 10 percent of those, and that sounds good, only the 
top 10 percent, if we are on an average corn farm of 409 acres, which 
is not a big farm, that would receive, on an average yield, $12,500 in 
a fixed decoupled payments, that farmer would be cut back to $4,250, 
whereas his neighbor on a 392-acre, who would fall just below the 
cutoff point, would get $12,500. That seems to me to be a terribly 
inequitable situation.
  If there is a countercyclical program, and the only commodity in the 
country is corn that has a low price, then all of the other producers 
in the country do not share in this. All of the money comes off of the 
top producers of the people who produce corn.
  So just by capping, you are hurting the people who actually need the 
help the most. The people who have good crops, the people who have good 
prices are not going to be affected because that is the design of our 
program. They are not going to get that payment, anyway. But the person 
who actually would need it, because the prices are so low, is going to 
be the one that is damaged the most. So it seems to me to be extremely 
inequitable.
  I understand, it is much easier for people to come up and try to 
create divisions among regions of the country when they do not have to 
represent the country as a whole. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) and I went into this whole discussion and debate, for the 
last 2 years on farm policy, recognizing that we have to look at 
agriculture as a whole. We have to represent this entire country. We 
have to look at it as to what we can do to maintain a balance in which 
everybody feels that they are being treated equitably.
  Yes, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) have a group of people for their amendment, 
but I did not notice that the people who farmed for a living are the 
people who are for their amendment. If we look at people who are in 
support of the House bill as passed by the committee, we will find it 
is the American farmer. It is the person out there providing the food 
and fiber for the people in this country, and it is the one group that 
has been hurt more economically in the last 4 years of any economic 
group in the country.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am one of the named sponsors of this 
amendment today. I am also a proud member of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Just to set the record straight, the amendment that we are offering 
today is not something that is new. In fact, it is based on legislation 
that I, along with 56 other Members of this body, introduced last June, 
the Working Lands Stewardship Act. It was an amendment that we had 
discussed during the markup of this farm bill in committee at the end 
of July, with the hopes of being able to discuss with the leadership 
further about working out some arrangement in regard to what we would 
like to accomplish.
  So with all due respect to the chairman, to claim that this is new or 
something just thrown upon them in the last 36 hours is not accurate.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman and the ranking member and the 
other members on the committee and the staff for the hard work that 
they have done in this farm bill. It is not an easy task to try to 
craft farm policy to help all our family farmers throughout the 
country. We can stipulate today that all of us have the intent to try 
to help our family farmers and the producers in this country under very 
difficult and challenging times.
  I represent a district in Wisconsin. The dairy industry is still the 
number one industry in the State of Wisconsin. In my congressional 
district in western Wisconsin, I have close to 10,500 family farms 
alone who are producing dairy, but every one of them is also producing 
commodity crops. So the claim that those of us offering this amendment 
are not working in the interests of family farmers is not fair or 
accurate.
  Today we have a chance to fundamentally reform agriculture policy so 
all farmers in all regions of the country will benefit under the next 
farm bill. The amendment we have today takes a little bit of the 
increase in subsidy payments that will go to the largest commodity 
producers in the country and will instead move those resources into 
voluntary incentive-based land and water conservation programs.
  As the Bush administration made clear in their statement on farm 
policy released just yesterday, even they cannot support the committee 
bill because, and I quote, ``. . . it misses the opportunity to 
modernize the Nation's farm programs through market-oriented tools, 
innovative environmental programs, including extending benefits to 
working lands, and aid programs that are consistent with our trade 
agenda.''
  Our amendment accomplishes all these objectives by relying on 
flexible and innovative conservation programs that all farmers in all 
regions of the country can participate in, and it is entirely compliant 
with our WTO and trade agreement responsibilities.
  These objectives are far from radical, as some of our opponents 
claim. In fact, they are entirely consistent with where the Bush 
administration's principles and farm policy lie, and it is consistent 
with the work currently being done in the United States Senate.
  This is what the Bush administration had to say in their statement of 
policy released yesterday in regard to the committee bill:
  ``Some of our Nation's producers are in serious financial straits, 
especially smaller farmers and ranchers. Rather than address these 
unmet needs, H.R. 2646 will continue to direct the greatest share of 
resources to those least in need of government assistance. Nearly half 
of all recent government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of 
farms, usually very large producers, while more than half of all U.S. 
farmers share in only 13 percent of the payments. H.R. 2646 would only 
increase this disparity.''
  So Members do not have to take our word for it on the floor, or from 
others who support the amendment, they merely need to just look at the 
Bush administration's only statement of policy on the farm bill to 
understand where they lie in regard to the committee work.
  Our amendment provides economic assistance to all farmers who want to 
meet their environmental challenges. Unfortunately, today, most 
farmers, ranchers, and foresters are rejected when they apply for 
conservation payments. Seventy percent of farmers and ranchers seeking 
Federal funds to improve water quality are annually rejected due to the 
inadequacy of funding. More than 3,000 farmers offering to restore more 
than one-half million acres of wetlands are currently being rejected 
due to the inadequacy of funding. Nine out of ten farmers and ranchers 
offering to preserve their farms and preserve open space against sprawl 
by selling their developmental rights are currently being rejected 
because of the inadequacy of funding. Three thousand farmers and 
ranchers offering to create wildlife habitat on their farms and ranches 
are currently being rejected because of the inadequacy of funding.

                              {time}  1345

  Three out of every four farmers and ranchers seeking basic technical 
assistance for their conservation plans on their own land are currently 
being rejected due to the inadequacy of funding. Unfortunately, just 
about all of these stewards will continue to be rejected under H.R. 
2646 being offered today.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some of the specific 
misinformation spread about this amendment.
  Supporters of H.R. 2646 claim that the passage of our amendment will 
cause irreparable harm to the agricultural economy and to small 
farmers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of

[[Page 18821]]

the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kind was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, in fact, under our amendment, all farmers, 
including commodity crop farmers, will still receive substantial 
increases in Federal farm funding. Specifically, our amendment would 
leave intact a doubling of subsidy payments to commodity producers from 
what they received under the 1996 farm bill.
  How do we pay for our amendment? We find offsets from the largest, 
the biggest of the big, commodity producers, the 10 percent. In fact, 
this pie chart shows the universe of farmers in the country today. 
Seventy percent of our farmers do not produce the commodity crops or 
receive the subsidy payments that would be affected under our 
amendment. With the remaining 30 percent of those commodity producers, 
90 percent of them are held harmless; and, therefore, the offsets would 
only come from 3 percent of the farmers or producers in this country. 
Hardly a revolutionary sea change.
  Of those 3 percent, they would still be receiving a doubling of the 
subsidy payments that they are currently receiving under the former 
farm bill passed in 1996. Hardly a radical change in policy proposal. 
What we are advocating in our amendment is simple fairness, simple 
equity, to recognize that there is a vast universe of farmers and 
producers in many regions throughout the country that are currently 
excluded under current farm bills and would continue to be excluded 
under the new farm bill.
  That is why we feel the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is 
fair. It is time for a fundamental change in farm policy. I would 
encourage our colleagues to support us in this amendment.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by my friends and 
colleagues, the gentlemen from New York and Wisconsin (Mr. Boehlert, 
Mr. Kind).
  We do need strong conservation efforts on the farm. The bill itself 
increases the baseline figures for conservation efforts by almost 80 
percent over the previous bill. The bill already encourages 
conservation by providing more cost-share assistance and conservation 
program funding.
  I had a meeting with representatives of Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants 
Forever and other conservation groups in Iowa, and they liked this 
conservation funding that is in this basic bill. A farm bill must also 
protect the Nation's food production and maintain stability on our 
farms and in our rural communities. Passage of the Kind amendment would 
hinder those efforts.
  Over the first 3 years of legislation, if the Kind amendment passed, 
Iowa farmers would lose over $800 million in support. That, Mr. 
Chairman, would not be kind to Iowa farm families or the small towns 
and merchants that depend on their business.
  In these troubled economic times, that could precipitate a rural farm 
crisis like something we saw in the 1980's in Iowa. Over the past 
several years, the farm economy has been stabilized by support of 
Congress through supplemental programs. In a time of economic 
uncertainty in our Nation, the last thing we need to do is to increase 
that uncertainty in our farm community.
  Mr. Chairman, this spring I called for Congress to pass a farm bill 
this year because our rural communities and farmers need a farm bill 
now. The tragic events of last month have not changed that. We should 
move forward this year with a farm bill, and we should move forward 
with a commodity title that is not reduced by $1.9 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment and passage of the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend and congratulate the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas) and all the 
members of the committee for the hard work they have done on this 
legislation over the past 2 years. I would like to thank the chairman 
for holding a hearing in my district while we were writing this 
legislation at Cookstown University.
  Finally, as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee of Conservation, 
Credit, Rural Development and Research, I would like to thank the 
committee and particularly the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas) for 
their significant increase in funding and investment in conservation.
  By saying that, Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of the words of our 
former great Speaker when he said, ``All politics is local.''
  Mr. Chairman, not only all politics is local, but all public policy 
is local. I want the leaders of my committee to know that I take no 
pleasure in opposing them on this amendment. But at the end of the day, 
every Member in this body must look at this legislation and see how it 
effects their State and how it effects their district.
  When I look at this legislation, even with its increased investment 
in conservation, the funding distribution is just not fair to the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where agriculture is still the number one 
industry. I believe it is the number one industry in New York or the 
Northeastern part of the country.
  I listen very closely to my mentor and leader, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) over the last few years, and it is true that as a 
result of the 1996 farm bill that some of the inequities that 
Pennsylvania faced and the Northeast faced was brought on by ourselves, 
by our own producers' unwillingness to participate in traditional 
programs because we do not grow farm commodities.
  So I went and worked very closely with the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, with their Department of Agriculture. I said, What can we 
do? What can we bring to this floor to try to have a better 
distribution of Federal investment in agriculture?
  The message was heard loud and clear that we need to have more with 
conservation. Even with the increase of 75 or 80 percent that the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas) worked so hard for, the 
distribution still is not fair. If we can get more money into the 
conservation title, it will give the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania more 
options to take up the backlog that they have at EQIP or Farmland 
Protect or CRP or any of the other programs that we have not been able 
to utilize significantly.
  I know this is coming down to a regional vote. I want to commend the 
leaders for bringing this legislation to the floor, but we all need to 
look at this. I urge all the Members from the Northeast and from the 
mid-Atlantic States to look closely at this legislation and examine 
what it does to each Member's district. I believe we can do better.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation, 
Credit, Rural Development and Research in the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think we need to step back and look at 
the underlying bill that this amendment proposes to change, a bill that 
makes a dramatic commitment to conservation in this country: 16 billion 
new dollars over a 10-year period, bringing conservation spending in 
the agricultural bill to $37 billion over the life of the bill; a $1 
billion increase in the EQIP program; increasing the CRP program, the 
conservation reserve program, to 39 million acres; a million and a half 
new acres to be enrolled in WRP; $500 million over the life of the bill 
to go to eradicate and determine and make things happen when it comes 
to farm land protection; wildlife habitat incentive programs, an 
additional 25 million a year, ramping up to 50 million a year; a two 
million acre grasslands reserve program from scratch. It is a major 
commitment that this committee made.
  Now, why do I rise to oppose the Boehlert-Kind amendment? Why do I 
think that the Boehlert-Kind amendment will add more strings and more

[[Page 18822]]

restrictions to conservation programs for farmers and ranchers out 
there? Let us look for a moment at EQIP.
  EQIP, the program that is voluntary, that farmers and ranchers use 
when they think the programs will help them in their conservation 
efforts and meet their environmental challenges. We had hearings across 
this topic, hearing from 23 different groups, and 4 basic topics came 
back from producers in EQIP: Provide more money; reform the priority 
area system; provide more flexibility; make the EQIP process fair for 
all producers.
  How did we respond in H.R. 2646? We increased EQIP spending from $200 
million a year to $1.285 billion a year. Twelve billion over 10 years. 
The amendment drops that back to 10 billion, a reduction.
  Also in the amendment, they spend money on programs that were never 
requested by producers. The water quality incentives program that gives 
drinking water utilities, not producers, control over the program. 
Furthermore, this program adds monitoring and compliance requirements 
to the EQIP program and then charges the producer for those costs. Why 
would producers want more regulatory guidelines? Why would producers 
want to spend money on programs they never asked for or endorsed? Who 
controls the information collected by these utilities? Not us, and 
there is certainly no guarantee of confidentiality in this amendment.
  The second biggest producer problem with EQIP is that USDA sets up 
these priority districts with 65 percent of the EQIP funds going to the 
prioritized areas. What did that cause? Well, that led producers across 
the country to find that if they were in the wrong county or on the 
wrong side of the county line, if they were on the wrong side of the 
river, they were denied funding simply because they were outside of the 
priority area. H.R. 2646 makes the Secretary consider EQIP contracts on 
their own merit and value. This amendment retains the current law that 
forces USDA to set up priority areas that pit producer against 
producer.
  What was one of the other things that producers asked for? They 
repeatedly stated they wanted more flexibility. This amendment takes 
away flexibility. It forces the Secretary to commit at least 40 percent 
of the funds to four particular areas. In other words, 40 percent of 
the money is tied up from the very get-go, and if the producers do not 
request those programs as specified, then the money is wasted. The 
money is lost. It is not available to the rest of EQIP.
  What else did producers make clear? They made it clear that they 
wanted an EQIP program for all producers. H.R. 2646 changed the EQIP 
program to make the program fair to all producers. It allows contracts 
to vary from 1 year to 10 in length instead of the current 5- to 10-
year contracts. This allows small producers who want to do shorter 
contracts to use the EQIP program.
  H.R. 2646 allows small producers to get paid in the same year they 
sign the contract. Currently they have to wait a year following the 
contract to receive their cost share money. H.R. 2646 makes the 
contract be considered by USDA on its own merit and value. What a 
concept, judging each contract on its own merit, and H.R. 2646 caps the 
money that can be spent per year per contract so that money is 
available to all producers.
  The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is biased toward 
certain producers.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Lucas) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, it ensures that small and 
socially-disadvantaged farmers are awarded a contract. It sounds 
meritorious on its surface, but does this mean that they are the cause 
of pollution or want a contract any worse than other producers? Of 
course not. Contracts should be considered on their own merit and 
value.
  Further, this amendment retains the current law that allows the 
largest producers to outbid small- to medium-sized farmers. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for their producers. Vote for this environmentally 
friendly underlying base bill H.R. 2646 and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I rise to oppose this amendment. As a leader of the Congressional 
Sportsmen Caucus who spent a number of months working with a task force 
that we set up to look specifically at the conservation part of the 
farm bill, and also spending the last couple of years looking at these 
programs, we have been working with all interested parties to improve 
Federal programs that promote soil and water conservation, wildlife 
habitat, water quality and farmland preservation.
  I oppose this current amendment, not because of its intent, but 
because the amendment really goes too far in some ways at the wrong 
time. I recognize the hard work and good intentions of my friend the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and others, and 
I even support several of the programs and features that they have in 
this amendment, but it is simply not possible, and this is the 
conclusion that we came to, to support this entire package with what it 
costs and do the kinds of things that we need to do for farmers to keep 
them in business.
  It is not time to start new programs that have not been through the 
committee process and have not been subjected to hearings and the work 
that needs to be done, and it is just not possible to do all of the 
good things that they want to do, in our opinion, and some of it, 
frankly, I have some concerns about.

                              {time}  1400

  Now, Mr. Chairman, the farm bill, as we know, is an act of careful 
balance and compromise; and we have spent a lot of time trying to come 
to that. So I ask my colleagues to take a step back and recall the past 
farm bill debates. My colleagues may remember past disagreements were 
over how much funding to include for conservation programs. The fights 
were over whether we are going to keep these important programs from 
being completely eliminated in some of these bills, and through the 
years we have struggled to keep and improve the programs that we have.
  Now, we have been through, I think, the talk about what is in this 
bill. There are significant increases for conservation. And in the task 
force that looked at this, we came to the conclusion that the best 
thing to do with the available money is put it into the existing 
programs that have big backlogs. These programs have worked well. They 
have done tremendous things, the CRP, WRP. They have brought back ducks 
and pheasants and deer to the levels we have never seen in this 
country. And with the resources, we just did not feel this was a time 
to go in setting up new programs that may or may not work or may or may 
not be the right thing to do.
  One of the other big problems with the current amendment is the 
dramatic cuts it makes in commodity programs that these farmers need. 
Now, supporters claim these cuts are on the largest farmers that do not 
really represent family farms. I would just like for everybody to 
understand that the USDA says that a large farm is one that has more 
than $250,000 worth of gross receipts. That is 15 percent of the 
farmers in this country, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) is 
talking about 10 percent.
  Well, those 15 percent of the farmers produce 54 percent of the food, 
and they only get 47 percent of the Government payments. On the other 
hand, the smaller farmers, the 85 percent that produce 46 percent of 
the food, they get 53 percent of the payments. So do not get drug into 
this big-versus-little issue. This will hurt everybody, and the 
chairman I think did a good job of pointing out that it is not the 
right kind of solution given the times we are in.

[[Page 18823]]

  Now, the National Farmers Union, the Farm Bureau, every major 
commodity group, all reality-based conservation groups oppose the deep 
cuts this amendment makes. Farmers are on the front lines of 
conservation. These groups understand that we cannot have successful 
conservation by eliminating the certainty and the safety net that our 
farmers need.
  Supporters of this amendment may have forgotten that the farm bill is 
still a work in process. The House Committee on Agriculture has worked 
over 2 years to develop this bill. We act today in a continuum that 
includes further negotiations, including a conference committee with 
the Senate; and at no time has the bill language been set in stone. We 
have been massaging this as we have gone through. In addition to the 
large increases in conservation funding provided in the committee 
markup, there have been significant improvements since then that have 
been made possible with continued negotiations with the committee.
  I want to commend the chairman for his willingness and openness to 
work with the Sportsmen's Caucus, Waterfowl Task Force, and groups like 
Pheasants Forever, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies, and the Nature Conservancy. I think it is regretful that some 
wildlife groups and the environmental community resisted compromise and 
negotiation with the committee by endorsing this amendment only a few 
days after there was committee action.
  So I urge my colleagues to join me today and oppose this amendment 
and support the bill.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words in opposition to this amendment.
  I have served on the Committee on Agriculture, and I am proud of my 
service there, for 6 years. This is my second farm bill. This is the 
fairest farm bill that has been put together during the time that I 
have been here and during the last two times that we have put together 
farm bills. Dozens of hearings have been held. People have been asked 
their opinions all over this country. What should we be doing? What 
should farm policy really be?
  There are 51 members on the Committee on Agriculture. It is a broad-
based committee. It represents America. It represents the interests of 
America. One of the authors of this amendment is a member of that 
committee; and I am told that he had the opportunity to trot out this 
idea, to offer it in the full committee, but then he realized that it 
did not have standing in the committee; that he could not find anybody 
to support it. So what did he do? He either withdrew it or decided not 
to offer it. So that is why it is not a part of the bill. It is not a 
part of the delicate balancing act that there needs to be to put 
together a farm bill to serve the country, not one particular region of 
the country.
  So part of the reason that we should vote against this is because 
this was tried in the committee; and the committee, for whatever 
reason, did not want to vote on it or the gentleman did not have the 
votes. The gentleman knows there was a debate, he knows he did not have 
the support, so he decided to get some of the other groups, 
conservation groups, and bring it to the floor and short-circuit the 
system that we all have to live under when we bring a major piece of 
legislation like this to the floor.
  So that is one fault with it. I will tell my colleagues the other 
part. The chairman of the Committee on Science, who is also an author 
of this and is part of the process here, knows how difficult it is to 
put bills together. He knows that. He is the chairman on the Committee 
on Science, and he has done a lot of good work on environmental issues. 
But the idea that somehow the gentleman was ignored or this issue was 
ignored is nonsense. It is just simply not true. It was an idea that 
has been out there. It has been floating around. It was a part of the 
discussion in the Committee on Agriculture. And so, as a chairman, I 
would think the gentleman would think better of the fact that if it was 
brought before the committee, that maybe he would have thought better 
than to try to short-circuit what went on.
  The best name for this amendment is the ``land grab amendment,'' 
because this affects the idea that we can take a big chunk out of a 
farm bill that was delicately put together and turn it into something 
that can be called conservation or preserving the land. I have the 
largest CRP program in the country in central Illinois and the 14 
counties. I take no back seat to anybody, make no apologies for the 
fact that we have a big conservation program. We are doing an awful lot 
with conservation, with the Nature Conservancy, with a lot of the 
different conservation groups; and we have done well by that. But we 
have done it under the programs established by the Congress, 
established by the 51 members of the committee who sit on the 
committee, who worked very hard to put this together.
  This is a very, very bad idea because it short-circuits the process. 
It goes around the process. It simply does not make sense to do this to 
the chairman, to the ranking member, to the members of the committee, 
the 51 members of the committee, who had an opportunity to talk about 
this. There is an increase in conservation. We all know that. That has 
been well stated here. It is not as if it has been short-circuited. It 
certainly has not.
  The bottom line is if Members want to save the family farm, if they 
really want to do something for small farmers, if they want to help 
agriculture, if they really want to send a message to a part of our 
economy that has been in a recession while the rest of the economy has 
been booming for the last 5 years, because agriculture has been in 
recession; and we have passed on this floor $30 billion of additional 
payments, so that has been taken care of, but if my colleagues really 
want to help farmers, the small family farm, if they want to save the 
family farm, if they want to really give opportunity to the small 
farmer, they will defeat this amendment which sends the message that it 
cannot be a part of the overall bill. It does not fit. It does not 
work. It is not a part of what was put together.
  This is an opportunity, I think, to really send a message that we 
believe in the family farm, we are going to help the family farmer, and 
we are going to do all we can to support the family farm. We are not 
going to have to pass additional payments year in and year out because 
we have put together a farm bill. The chairman and the ranking member 
deserve a lot of credit. They traveled the country. They went to many 
counties. They went to many States. They listened to people.
  This is a good opportunity to say to people we are with you, we are 
going to help you, we are going to save the family farm. Defeat the 
Kind amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed the comments that have been 
just made; and regrettably, they are useful, but only slightly so. This 
is a good amendment to a good bill. It is a good amendment that makes a 
good bill much better.
  The President had some words to say to my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle the other day. The administration noted that nearly half of 
the government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of the 
farms, while more than half of all the other farmers have received only 
13 percent.
  Now, where are the cuts that are made here, about which my colleagues 
on the Committee on Agriculture complain so much in the amendment? They 
are to the commodity section. But interesting to note is that the 
commodity section is going to pay more than it has in the past to the 
American farmer. So the American farmer is going to do fine under this.
  LDP payments are increased. But where is the big increase? The big 
increase in funding under this legislation is to conservation. And it 
is going in a way which permits all farmers, especially the smaller 
farmers, to begin to draw an adequate opportunity to participate in 
funding for conservation purposes.
  It is noteworthy, I would tell my colleagues, that three out of four 
farmers

[[Page 18824]]

have been turned away from the conservation programs because of a lack 
of money. Three out of four. This is going to give the little farmer a 
chance to participate in conservation, where there is an enormous 
benefit. The only conservation programs that have really received 
significant increases under the bill are those which have benefited the 
big farmers, not the little farmers. This switches it.
  This takes care of the hunters, the conservationists, the people who 
are concerned about wise handling of our lands and public resources. It 
sees to it the money goes into the hands of the little farmer, who will 
begin to spend money, which he does not now have for conservation, for 
the protection of fish and wildlife, for keeping our waters clean and 
safe.
  It is not going to benefit some of the enormous hog farmers, or the 
farmers who, and I am not sure we can really call them farmers, but 
people who put enormous numbers of hogs or cattle in feedlots and stuff 
them, producing unbelievable amounts of manure. We can use other laws 
to address those problems by making them clean up as polluters, if they 
in fact are doing that.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) 
increases the Wetland Reserve Program, it increases the Farm Protection 
Program, it increases the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, it 
increases funds for conservation of private grazing lands, it increases 
the Grassland Reserve Program, and conservation technical assistance. 
Those are things which we need to do in the interest of all. The 
Conservation Reserve Program, a program which will assist transition 
from conventional to organic farming programs, those are things which 
are important.
  I have listened to some of my colleagues tell me how the real 
conservation organizations favor the bill. Perhaps. But the real 
conservation organizations favor the amendment. The International 
Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners, Sierra Club, 
the National Wildlife Federation. Every meaningful conservation 
organization. Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Unlimited. Those organizations 
support the amendment.
  What we are seeking here is an opportunity to benefit all of the 
farmers; to increase money going to the real farmer, to the family 
farmer, and to the little farmer to enable them to spend money for 
conservation, for programs which benefit everybody and which 
responsible farmers like.
  I met with some farmers who came in to see me the other day. They 
were complaining about my support of this amendment. I said, it is 
going to leave you with more money for your commodities programs. It is 
going to leave you with much more money and access to conservation 
programs that are good. What are your complaints? They really had no 
complaints.
  If this is explained properly to the farmers, they will understand 
and they will see that what we are doing is good. I urge the adoption 
of the amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  It has been interesting listening to this debate, and again we are 
wandering a bit far afield. I want to clarify one thing for the benefit 
of all Members.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Chairman, Pheasants Forever supports the base bill as it is 
written. I want to come back to two very important facts that Members 
seem to be getting away from.
  Fact number one, this is a farm bill. Did everybody hear that? This 
is a farm bill. This is not an environmental bill, and Members need to 
think about that.
  Fact number two, this bill increases conservation programs by 78 
percent. I understand that may not be enough for some people, but that 
is a huge increase. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) just 
talked about farmers who were turned away on some of the conservation 
programs. He was evidently talking about the EQIP program. We increased 
that program under this bill from about $200 million to $1.2 billion. 
That is a huge increase.
  But what this amendment is about is redefining what a ``real farmer'' 
is. We just heard that expression. A real farmer is somebody who farms 
full time. When I hear these arguments, even coming from some of the 
folks in the administration who have never seen a real farm, they do 
not seem to understand that out in places where we really farm, farmers 
do not farm 20 or 30 acres any more. To be a real farmer, farmers have 
to farm 400, 600, 800 acres, or more.
  According to the research that we have from FAPRI, which is an 
independent, nonpartisan farm consulting group, they said that this 
amendment will cut payments to farmers who grow more than 409 acres in 
Minnesota, the payments they could receive, by two-thirds. That is 
devastating. Two-thirds. Somebody who is growing 409 acres of corn in 
Minnesota is not a big farmer. That is not a corporate farmer.
  Incidently, in the State of Minnesota, and in most States now, we 
have outlawed corporate farming. There are no corporate farms. The only 
corporate farms we have are family-owned corporations where a brother, 
a sister, two brothers, a family has created a corporation.
  This is bad business. We have to talk about that average family farm. 
It is going to affect them. One of the things that we have tried to do 
in this bill, and I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member 
because I think they have come together and realized one of the 
weaknesses we had in farm policy is we did not have a countercyclical 
program. We gave people too much money when prices were good; and then 
we had to come back with these supplemental programs when prices were 
bad.
  Mr. Chairman, we want predictability not only for that average 
farmer, we want predictability for the Federal budget. This is a good 
bill as written. We cannot afford to strip away $1.9 billion every year 
from that average family farmer, to take away that support in the 
countercyclical payments, and put it into additional conservation 
programs. Seventy-eight percent is more than enough. This is a farm 
bill, not an environmental bill. Defeat the Kind amendment. Pass the 
bill as written.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, in its current form, the farm bill before us 
shortchanges conservation programs that serve farms and ranches of all 
sizes all over the country while increasing subsidies for large, often 
corporate operations that are producing commodity crops in specific 
parts of the country.
  Many farmers and ranchers want to be good stewards of the land, to 
restore lost wetlands, grasslands, and implement a variety of other 
practices to protect wildlife habitat. There is a long list of farmers 
eager to participate in conservation programs. Currently, 67 percent of 
the payments go to only 10 percent of the farmers, excluding most of 
our Nation's farms.
  The Boehlert-Kind amendment makes payments available to more farmers 
in more regions of the country by funding conservation programs from 
which all farmers can benefit because they are not based primarily on 
the level of production of a narrow group of crops. The Boehlert-Kind 
amendment shifts only about 2.5 percent of the overall dollar 
authorization in this legislation away from the largest corporate 
producers and increases the funding for land conservation programs in 
every single State in the country.
  Furthermore, President Bush does not support the committee's bill in 
its current form. The statement of administration policy states that 
the farm bill, ``Misses an opportunity to modernize the Nation's farm 
program through innovative environmental programs, including extending 
benefits to working lands.''
  The Bush administration also criticizes the bill for encouraging 
overproduction when prices are low and for failing to help the 
agricultural producers most in need, especially smaller farms and 
ranches.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to address these flaws by voting

[[Page 18825]]

in support of the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment. This 
amendment will aid small and medium-sized agricultural producers while 
expanding conservation programs. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on 
the amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments about statements by some of the 
previous speakers. First of all, I want to tell the Nation that we are 
here concerned and continue to work on the problems that occurred in 
New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. We are working to make America 
safer, more secure, and more economically viable, even though we are 
strongly debating differences of opinion in the agriculture bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have done a pretty 
good job on this agriculture bill because they have funneled dollars 
where they needed to go. My disagreement is the equitable distribution 
of those dollars and the number of dollars. Not in the Committee on 
Agriculture, but I worked with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
some years ago on nutrient management problems. In my area it was 
poultry, and in his area it was dairy. There are many of us not on the 
Committee on Agriculture that live in agricultural communities. I am 
the first generation of my family not born on the farm, and yet I have 
an intimate relationship with agriculture.
  I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for his increase in 
conservation dollars, and I trust his judgment because he is a good and 
fine gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue here with me is the perspective on the 
equitable, my word, equitable, distribution of dollars, throughout the 
Nation toward those farms with a sense of urgency that are in the most 
need over the next few years. They are out there.
  This amendment goes a long way towards dealing with agriculture that 
is intimately related with environmental issues. Agriculture deals with 
soil, one of the most complex things on Earth.
  As a matter of fact, when one thinks about milk, think about buying a 
carton of milk. Does one think about going to the store and pulling it 
off the shelf; or do my colleagues think about the sun shining on 
grass, and then the whole natural process that goes from there to 
producing milk. Agriculture is intimately tied in with environmental 
issues, with the mechanics of natural processes.
  So the issue here is how do we keep our rural areas economically 
viable? How do we keep our rural areas rural? Well, we do that by 
creating a situation where agriculture can be unique and profitable. 
And how does agriculture remain unique and profitable? It remains 
unique and profitable if those farmers can not only produce the corn, 
the wheat, the poultry, the hogs, the milk, et cetera, et cetera, but 
close to where they produce it, they can process it. They can package 
it. They can market it within a particular region. It is value added.
  How else do we keep this rural area viable? We keep it 
environmentally sound. The conservation in this amendment goes a long 
way into making those rural areas environmentally pristine. The water 
quality is going to improve. The forest habitat is going to improve. 
The wildlife habitat is going to improve.
  As a matter of fact, contained in this amendment is a unique 
perspective on the conservation programs. Up to this point the 
conservation programs were applied to one farm at a time. What we do in 
this amendment is to help create a regional approach so many farmers 
can get together and submit these plans to USDA, and then get those 
dollars for a regional approach. It does not have to be just one State, 
it could be in a multistate region.
  In my area of Delmarva, we have Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. We 
are working on what we call Chesapeake fields, to keep agriculture 
viable, profitable, and environmentally sound, and create a 
conservation corridor from Virginia to Pennsylvania for wildlife.
  There has also been some discussion that I have heard here today and 
I have heard in the last few days about hobby farmers. Well, just 
because a farmer has a small farm and just because a farmer's wife has 
to work in the bank or is a schoolteacher or drives a bus does not mean 
that farmer is not putting his heart and soul and grit and life into 
that dirt to make that farm profitable because that farm was received 
from the farmer's great, great grandparents 200 years ago; or maybe the 
farmer is a recent farmer.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not about small farmers getting a subsidy 
because they are not competitive with the big farmers, and I do not 
want to go where some of us have gone pitting the big farmers against 
the small farmers. This is about preserving the infrastructure of 
agriculture for itself, for water quality, for wildlife habitat, but 
mostly to preserve the family farm because that is American.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we pass
the Boehlert - Kind - Gilchrest - Dingell amendment. I think this is 
the most important amendment because I think this is really an 
amendment about the compact that will be forged in this country, about 
the future of farming in this country.
  We used to have a colleague in this Congress from Minnesota, and he 
used to get up and talk about the farm bill. He was on the Committee on 
Agriculture, and he would say we have doubled the productivity of the 
American farmer every 10 years. And he would say the way we did it was 
we put half of them out of work during that 10-year period so there are 
only half as many left.
  We have had farm bill after farm bill after farm bill, and year after 
year what we hear about is the distress in farm country and the plight 
of the family farmer, about the people moving to the cities, and the 
people who cannot leave their farms to their children and cannot 
produce and make a living, and somebody else in the family has to take 
a job.
  My colleague stood up earlier and said this is not an environmental 
bill, this is a farm bill. Well, America has gotten a lot smaller, a 
lot more crowded. Farmers cannot farm in isolation any longer.
  The problems in the Chesapeake Bay, the problems in the San Francisco 
Bay, the problems in the Gulf of Mexico, the problems in Santa Monica 
Bay and Puget Sound, many of them start hundreds of miles away on 
farmlands where farmers do not have the capability, the resources, the 
wherewithal to protect the runoffs, to protect the offsite impacts of 
their work.
  This committee has struggled with that, and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have 
addressed that; but this amendment has made the determination it has 
been insufficient.
  The problems in San Francisco Bay are created by huge dairies in the 
Central Valley, huge cattle feeding yards in the Central Valley. For 
years, the runoff ran into the creek; from the creek it ran into the 
San Joaquin River; from the San Joaquin River it went to the Sacramento 
River; from the Sacramento River it went into the San Pablo Bay; and 
from the San Pablo Bay it went into the San Francisco Bay.
  Farmers cannot farm in isolation any longer. The connections to our 
commercial fishery on the Pacific Coast, the problems that we have, 
many of them start on the farmlands many, many miles away.

                              {time}  1430

  The protection of habitat, the protection of riparian areas, 
absolutely crucial to one of the great delta regions in the world, is 
about the effort and giving the resources and the ability of small 
farmers and ranchers and others to farm their land in an 
environmentally sound way and continue to make a living doing so. This 
is not a great contest between the environmentalists and the farmers. 
In fact, if

[[Page 18826]]

there had not been so much resistance to this amendment, I suspect it 
could have been incorporated, and for many of the things that people 
are criticizing it about, they are criticizing because it was not 
worked out in the committee.
  But the fact of the matter is we need this amendment. We need this 
amendment. After the next reapportionment, there will be fewer people 
representing rural America. We need a compact that brings America 
together around farming. There is no shortage of production in the 
world. We know that soybeans are being produced at much lower prices 
and the cost of production in Brazil is threatening our industry in 
this country. The question is under what arrangements and what 
contracts and what agreements will we make sure that that production 
takes place in America?
  And so you have to deal with the externalities, just as Dupont has to 
deal with the externalities of their business in their chemical plant 
or Chevron in their refineries or any other business has to deal with 
the externalities.
  We have become a very crowded country on the coast, if you will, for 
the most part. And the people down in the dead zone, in the Gulf of 
Mexico are very interested in the farming practices up north. That is 
what this amendment is about. That is why it has such overwhelming and 
such an incredible diverse support of interest groups supporting it. It 
is about the stewardship in this millennium of America's lands, of 
America's crops, America's habitat, America's wildlife, America's 
fisheries and America's family farmers. It is about sharing the effort 
that we make in this country to keep family farms on the farm.
  We have not had a great deal of success. We have not had a great deal 
of success. We have had a lot of farm bills, but we have not had a lot 
of success. So maybe we ought to just broaden our thinking and 
understand that this is one more tool.
  Many people fought the alternative energy and wind energy. Now we are 
seeing the farmers are turning to that because it can lend income to 
their land. With maybe less than the use of 5, 6 percent of their land, 
they can develop substantial resources and they can stay on the land 
and they can continue to farm. I thought that was our interest. I 
thought that was our interest, was keeping families on the farms. It is 
an important part of our society.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Those of us from the urban and the 
suburban areas ought to understand the nature of doing that. I think it 
is an important decision for a society like ours to make, the 
commitment of keeping families on the farm. But apparently we have not 
been able to do it as we have just shoveled the subsidies to the 
largest of the farmers or the largest of the commodity brokers. 
Something has gone wrong in this policy. This is a chance to rework it 
and see if there is a way to get other resources to those family farms. 
You already made the decision, you would not make this in any part of 
the economy, that half of the income is coming from the government.
  So the question is what is the benefit for the other half of America? 
We appreciate the crops and the foods. We all know the fact that we pay 
less than almost any other country in the world. But I think this is 
really about the future compact. I think this is about the future of 
farming. I think this is about the sustainability of that farming, and 
I think it is about forging a political alliance between urban, 
suburban and rural communities, about the importance of making sure 
that we maintain the family farmer on the family farm.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Boehlert-Kind 
amendment. This amendment would improve the way the Federal Government 
helps farmers and the way we conserve valuable American farmland.
  At issue today is whether we are going to continue a farm program 
that favors certain agricultural users over others or whether we will 
spread that significant Federal farm subsidies more equitably 
throughout the farming community.
  The Boehlert-Kind amendment will benefit more farmers by shifting 
nearly $2 billion a year in traditional Federal commodity crop 
subsidies to conservation programs that benefit farmers and the 
environment.
  We all recognize that the farm bill before us today, like the farm 
program that it seeks to change, significantly rewards the producers of 
commodity corps--corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, rice, barley 
and oats--to the exclusion of non-commodity crop producers.
  That hurts a lot of farmers, and a lot of states. Take California, 
for example.
  While California generates one-eighth of the country's agricultural 
production, it gets very little Federal agricultural assistance--
primarily because we grow specialty crops and not commodity crops.
  California farmers receive just 2 cents in subsidies on every dollar 
of production. Meanwhile, farmers in the major commodity producing 
states receive at least 17 cents in subsidies on the dollar for their 
agricultural production.
  The status quo is not equitable and needs to be changed.
  This serious inequity must be addressed. But it is not the only 
reason to vote for the Boehlert-Kind amendment.
  Voting for this amendment is also a vote to protect America's 
precious open spaces and environment.
  I applaud Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for 
recognizing the importance of conservation programs and increasing 
funding levels for these programs.
  Unfortunately, I strongly believe that conservation and environmental 
programs need funding over and above what the Agriculture Committee has 
approved. The Boehlert-Kind amendment increases the overall level for 
conservation funding while better defining the conservation programs.
  For example, the Boehlert-Kind amendment improves the Committee's 
Conservation Reserve Program by preventing the loss of over 30 million 
acres of tall grasslands. As many of my friends that hunt know, tall 
grasses are needed for ducks, pheasants, and other wildlife to nest and 
hide. This important change to the Conservation Reserve Program is why 
the National Wildlife Federation and Ducks Unlimited support this 
amendment.
  The Boehlert-Kind amendment also ensures that lands chosen for 
conservation programs are selected because they will actually improve 
environmental quality. Unfortunately, the Committee bill weakens the 
use of environmental merit for selecting lands in conservation 
programs.
  The Committee bill provides no new money for technical assistance, 
even while promising new technical staff to help the country's largest 
animal feedlots. The Boehlert-Kind amendment provides funding for 
technical assistance, which is why the California Association of 
Resource Conservation Districts support the Kind amendment.
  In California, increased funding and reformed environmental programs 
will make a big difference to our communities.
  The California Farmland Conservancy Program can begin to address the 
3,500 acre backlog of land farmers want to enroll in the Farmland 
Protection Program.
  California water quality will improve by increased funding for the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) which helps California 
farmers adopt practices to reduce the level of sedimentation, nitrogen 
and phosphorous runoff into California waters. Currently, the EQUIP 
program has a $35 million backlog.
  Food control and wildlife population will improve by increased 
funding to the Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Programs, 
which faces an $85 million backlog.
  In addition to support from the conservation community, the Boehlert-
Kind amendment is also supported by the California Winegrowers, San 
Diego and Riverside County, Association of California Water Districts 
and California Irrigation Association.
  The status quo has to change. Our best chance for reform is with the 
amendment my colleagues Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Kind, Mr. Gilchrest, and Mr. 
Dingell are offering today.
  Support the Boehlert-Kind amendment.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I appreciate the efforts of the gentlemen who have offered the 
amendment. A lot of work has gone into this. But I rise to oppose the 
amendment for several reasons.
  One reason is simply the issue of the Conservation Reserve Program. 
We

[[Page 18827]]

currently have 36.4 million acres allocated to CRP. We are currently at 
the present time using only 33.5 million acres of CRP. The amendment 
would increase CRP to 45 million acres at the cost of several billion 
dollars. Why in the world would we increase CRP to 45 million acres 
when we are not even using the 36.4 million acres we now have 
allocated?
  The amendment would allow anywhere from $2 to $4 billion for 
conservation easements. These easements would result in land being put 
into conservation practices that can never be taken out again. 
Currently, the Federal Government in the United States controls, or 
owns, over 30 percent of the land in the Nation. We do not need the 
Federal Government controlling more land. I can tell you for sure that 
most private landowners do not want this to happen.
  Then, thirdly, I had mentioned the fact that the amendment as it is 
presented shifts money from those people who are involved in production 
agriculture to many individuals, not all, who are part-time farmers, 
who are people who own land for recreational purposes, and I do not 
think that is the purpose of a farm bill.
  Some people have said, well, we are just going to shift money from 
the wealthy 10 percent of farmers. In my State, Nebraska, that means 
anyone who has 500 acres or more in base crops. The average size of a 
farm in Nebraska is 900 acres. So what we are talking about here is 
taking money from medium-sized and some small farmers to pay the $19 
billion that this bill is going to cost, $1.9 billion a year. Over $500 
million will be lost in the State of Nebraska alone.
  I would like to explode a myth that I keep hearing floated around 
this body, which really begins to bother me, and, that is, that our 
farmers are getting wealthy by receiving checks at the expense of the 
general public. If that is true, why do we have thousands of people 
leaving farming each year? One thousand farmers a year leave my State 
of Nebraska. Currently, most of our farmers are telling their children 
not to go into farming.
  We have no young farmers left in the United States. Forty years of 
age is a young farmer. The average age of farmers in my district is 60 
years of age. Three-fourths of the farms in our country rely on off-
farm income. That means the farm wife and oftentimes the farmer, too, 
is driving 10, 20, 30, 40 miles to work and usually these are $6, $7, 
$8 an hour jobs so they can stay on the farm. If that is the case, then 
why in the world do we say that we are making people wealthy in farming 
at public expense?
  Lastly, just let me say this. There are 84 different groups that 
support the base bill. Eighty-four groups support the bill. Why is this 
that they support it? It is because of the process that we have gone 
through. Nearly every one of these groups has appeared before the 
Committee on Agriculture and they have been required to write the farm 
bill. They know what it takes, they know it is a disciplined procedure, 
they know it is very involved and that it is very difficult to do. They 
appreciate that process. It has been 2 years in the making. The two 
gentlemen who have authored this bill primarily are people who have 
spent their entire life in agriculture. They have been on the Committee 
on Agriculture through several bills. They know what they are doing.
  It is sort of deja vu for me, because I used to be in a business or 
in an enterprise where we would spend 90 hours a week preparing for a 
contest. Then we would have people come in and say, ``Well, we don't 
like the way you did it.'' And we would say, ``Well, what would you 
do?'' And they could never give you an answer.
  And so we have an administration that does not like it, but they 
cannot give us an answer. We have one of our leading financial 
newspapers that does not like the bill, but they do not have a bill. We 
do not know what the Senate is going to do, and so we better start 
acting now while we have a chance because there is not apt to be very 
much money next year for agriculture.
  I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to make 
it crystal clear to all of my colleagues, but especially to the 
sponsors of this amendment, all of whom are my good friends and for 
whom I have the greatest respect. I want them to know that I fully 
support the spirit of their amendment and in the past have supported 
similar freestanding bills. It is the substance of this particular 
amendment that I object to, and my objection can be distilled to one 
word: jobs.
  At a time when a different company each day announces massive 
layoffs, this amendment in my opinion would ultimately mean more 
unemployed people in this country. And, by the way, these are not 
people, by and large, who can just switch from company to company. No, 
some of these people are some of our Nation's farmers, the people who 
actually put the food on our table. In mine and the district of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), 50 percent of all the winter 
vegetables in this country are grown in the Glades area that we 
represent. These people help to put clothes on our back. I will not 
stand on this floor and support an amendment which will put some of the 
hardest working people in this country and in my State and district out 
of work. I exhort my colleagues to think about this before they cast a 
vote on this amendment.
  Sometimes we speak from personal experiences here on the floor, and 
some people who claim some interest in farms visited their grandmama or 
grandpapa at some point during the course of their lifetime on a farm 
and do not know very much about it, and some would argue, ``Well, what 
do you know?'' Well, I come with the experience as a boy of having been 
a migrant laborer. I picked beans, cut chicory and stripped celery in 
the district, interestingly enough, that I am now privileged and 
honored to represent.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud my colleagues who have moved this amendment. 
Like each of them, I am proud of the environmental record I have 
accumulated in 9 years in this House of Representatives. In fact, 
according to the League of Conservation Voters, I have one of the 
highest environmental ratings of any Member in my State and most 
Members in Congress.
  But let me get down to brass tacks. I wish we had the money to do 
everything we need to do today, not only about this, but certainly 
about the residual of the events of September 11. I wish we had the 
money to increase funding for conservation and make certain our farmers 
get what they need. Unfortunately, this House, in my opinion, passed an 
unwise tax cut months ago, and we must now live with the consequences 
and within the budget that we passed. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have recognized 
that and have forged a good farm bill for us all to consider, and they 
are to be complimented along with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Lucas) and the subcommittee as it pertains to this particular measure 
being debated.
  This is not an either-or situation. It is simply a false argument to 
say that you are either for conservation or for farmers. I am both. And 
the authors of this bill, Chairman Combest, Ranking Member Stenholm and 
others, have provided $16 billion for conservation programs. This 
represents a 75 percent increase over current funding. A 75 percent 
increase. I challenge any of my colleagues in the House to find another 
program that we give such an increase.
  Look, there is an old expression around here that everything that 
needs to be said has been said, but everyone has not said it yet, so I 
am not going to go on much longer, Mr. Chairman, but I think the 
ranking member of the committee the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
had it right when he said that this amendment cuts the legs out from 
under our farmers. I could not agree more.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page 18828]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind amendment. I 
want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his comments, because I 
think they help us to focus on what our farm bill is really about. It 
is about American workers and American consumers. That is how I think 
we have to examine this amendment. In my opinion, this amendment is 
going to do great harm to the American workers that the gentleman from 
Florida just spoke to but also to the American consumer. The reason is 
this: This farm bill is dedicated to the proposition that America is a 
land that has been noted throughout its history for producing the 
greatest, most abundant, safest and most affordable food supply 
anywhere in the world.

                              {time}  1445

  That is what this bill is designed to do. The Kind amendment will 
have a devastating effect on our ability to hold down food prices in 
this country because we will do something that is totally 
inappropriate.
  The base bill has an 80 percent increase in programs that promote 
conservation in this country, and that is good. Nobody in this room 
does not want to protect our environment. But when you increase that 
money by 400 or more percent, you are wasting that money. You are using 
it in ways that will take land out of agricultural production 
unnecessarily and increase the cost of producing grains and other food 
items across this country.
  My farmers in Virginia, by and large, are those very folks that have 
been described here today who have another job in town and spend a good 
deal of their time attempting to make some living off of the 
agricultural production they have. They are mostly cattle farmers, 
dairy farmers, and the largest production in my district is poultry, 
chickens, and turkeys.
  Now, these folks, in order to have a profitable livelihood, spend the 
vast amount of the cost of their production on buying grains from 
Midwestern farmers. When the price of those grains goes up because the 
amount of production is down, then the cost that they have to spend 
goes up; and for a poultry farmer, 80 percent of what they spend their 
money on are grains. When they do that, when the price of grain goes 
up, it devastates the profitability to them. That in turn results in 
increased costs.
  Whether it is a product that directly comes from the grain, like 
bread and pasta and so on, or whether it is a meat product that is fed 
by those grains, either way the cost to the consumer goes up 
significantly with this amendment.
  The second reason I oppose this amendment is that we are attempting 
to rewrite the farm bill here on the floor, when we could have had the 
opportunity to debate this in the committee. The amendment was 
discussed and withdrawn, and it was not voted on. We did not get a 
vote, as the gentleman from Illinois accurately portrayed earlier, from 
the 51 members of the Committee on Agriculture, to see what America's 
farmers feel. Some here have stood up and said we are doing this for 
the farmers. The 51 members of that committee represent America's 
farmers as well as anybody, and I can tell you this amendment was 
withdrawn because it would have had no chance of success in that 
committee.
  Finally, I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department 
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry; and I want to say that 
this amendment would have a devastating impact upon the forestry 
programs that have been built into the farm bill. For the first time we 
have a significant increase in the attention we are paying to the 
management of our forest lands, both public and private. This bill does 
the private part of that.
  The amendment has redundant programs. The amendment has changes in it 
that eliminate important accountability requirements. Existing easement 
and cost-share forestry programs and the FLEP program require the 
involvement of the State foresters and the stewardship coordinating 
committee, made up of a broad cross-section of conservationists. These 
programs secure State, community, and local support for their 
objectives. The Boehlert-Kind approach gives the authority to 
Washington. It ignores local priorities and has no reporting mechanism 
to tell Congress what they achieve.
  This is not good government, it is not even good conservation, and it 
is certainly not a good use of the taxpayers' limited dollars.
  The Watershed Forestry Initiative contained in the amendment limits 
the practices available to land managers to achieve their goals. 
Forestry management is extremely complex and varies tremendously across 
the country.
  I urge my colleagues to retain that flexibility included in the 
underlying bill to promote good conservation with a reasonable increase 
in that conservation, but, most importantly, to look after the consumer 
and the American worker.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because conservation payments 
will help boost farm and ranch income without encouraging production of 
even greater surpluses that lower crop prices.
  As the Bush administration reported 2 weeks ago, traditional crop 
subsidies have triggered the production of huge surpluses that have 
lowered crop prices. Congress has responded by providing emergency 
payments to farmers, but these payments have also encouraged even 
greater production and even greater surpluses.
  In particular, the Bush administration concluded that these subsidies 
have inflated farmland prices, making it harder for smaller producers 
to compete. The challenge, Mr. Chairman, is to boost farm and ranch 
income without triggering the production of huge crop surpluses. 
Conservation payments, unlike subsidy payments, cannot be used to 
produce more crops, but are instead used to change production methods 
to help the environment.
  Conservation payments have two additional benefits: they reward 
farmers for protecting and improving water quality and wildlife 
habitat, and they ensure that we comply with our international trade 
agreements.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, farmers want to conserve and provide more open 
space. Nationally, more than 190,000 farmers were rejected this year 
when they sought water quality grants from USDA. In my State of 
California, farmers are facing a $122.8 million conservation backlog. 
Across the country, farmers are facing a $2 billion conservation 
backlog. This amendment will help all farmers boost their income 
without triggering the growth of huge surpluses that lower crop prices.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the Kind amendment.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment before 
us, because it provides us with a tremendous opportunity to combine 
needed agricultural assistance to a broad array of farmers with 
environmental protection.
  I would like to first of all commend the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture and ranking member, who authored the underlying bill before 
us, for incorporating significant increases in our conservation 
programs. But the fact is that we can do more. We should do more to 
ensure that all of our Nation's farmers have equitable access to 
Federal assistance by further expanding our conservation programs. This 
amendment provides much of this needed equity.
  I share the disappointment of many farmers in my own area of 
Wisconsin who seek assistance for sound environmental practices, but 
are turned away because these programs are oversubscribed.
  The benefits of this amendment for a State like Wisconsin are 
obvious. The dairy farmers, especially crop producers that dominate my 
State's agriculture, will have an opportunity to access assistance that 
would otherwise be unavailable to them. Farmers in my area will receive 
an 8 percent increase in agricultural assistance under this amendment 
compared with the base bill.

[[Page 18829]]

  At the same time, this amendment does not preclude commodity 
producers from accessing this assistance either. The amendment simply 
increases the Federal Government's encouragement for sound 
environmental practices and gives all farmers a greater opportunity to 
receive assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment moves the bill significantly in the 
direction requested by our President and our Secretary of Agriculture 
as outlined in their submission to the Congress and the country, over a 
100-page agriculture policy statement. They have been working on this. 
Along with the Senate, I hope we can work better as a team with our 
administration.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding so I may 
clarify a couple of points.
  Again, our amendment and the offsets we would find under the farm 
bill would affect 3 percent of the farmers in this country. We hold 
harmless 90 percent of the commodity producers who are currently 
receiving subsidy payments. Of those 3 percent, they are still going to 
be receiving under our amendment to the base bill a doubling of the 
subsidy payments that they were receiving under the last farm bill 
passed in 1996, which just goes to point out the intense concentration 
of subsidy payments going to a few, but very large, commodity producers 
throughout the country.
  Perhaps Mike Kort, the Nebraska corn farmer who received $73,000 in 
subsidy payments last year alone said it best: ``There have to be 
limits. Why are we giving millions of dollars to millionaires?''
  There has been some reference that we bypassed the committee process. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. We did not spring this 
amendment on people. We had a discussion in committee. We tried working 
with the committee and the staff to try to work something out before 
the bill came to the floor.
  But the truth is this: over 80 percent of farm bill funding goes to 
15 States in this country; over 80 percent to 15 States. Those 15 
States are very well represented on the Committee on Agriculture. This 
is a democracy. There are 35 other States that would like to have a say 
in the crafting of farm policy. There are 384 other Representatives who 
do not serve on the Committee on Agriculture who also have a right to 
be heard in regards to the direction of our support for family farmers 
in all regions. That is why we are here today discussing this 
amendment.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand today to urge the passage of the 
Kind-Boehlert-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment. This amendment supports 
incentive-based measures critical to the success of farming and 
conservation programs.
  As we stand here this afternoon, hundreds of thousands of farmers 
seeking Federal assistance to improve water quality, preserve 
threatened farms from sprawl or restore wetlands, grasslands and other 
important wildlife habitat are rejected due to inadequate funding. 
Nationwide, half of the farmers seeking technical assistance are 
rejected due to lack of funding.
  This amendment would boost funding for farmland and wildlife habitat 
protection programs, boost funding to reduce runoff and restore 300,000 
acres of wetlands each year. It would also provide grants for farmers' 
markets, boost funding for planting trees along urban rivers, eliminate 
barriers to organic food production, and encourage forest protection 
and enhancement.
  Increasing the annual funding for voluntary incentive-based 
conservation programs not only will help protect the environment, but 
also will contribute to farm and ranch income, ease regulatory burdens, 
and reduce water treatment costs.
  Unless we reward farmers when they meet our environmental challenges, 
one-third of our rivers and lakes will remain polluted and millions of 
acres of open space will be lost forever.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the other cosponsors 
for their leadership demonstrated in the changes proposed.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, appreciate my friends and what they are trying 
to accomplish with their amendment. I believe that they are well 
intended. But the fact of the matter is, this does have a devastating 
effect on all the people that we are trying to help with this bill. In 
fact, the analysis referred to earlier suggests that South Dakota, my 
home State, would lose $245 million in the first 3 years of this bill 
under this amendment.
  Now, there has been a lot of discussion today about big States and 
small States and some discussion about reapportionment; and while some 
of the bigger States are figuring out how they are going to redivide 
their congressional representation, South Dakota does not have that 
problem. We only have one in the Congress, and so does North Dakota, 
with my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), and 
other States in the rural areas of this country.
  We do not have a lot of people in South Dakota. We have about 730,000 
people in my State, about 32,000 farmers. Yet those 730,000 people grow 
the food that feeds the world. You look at any list of production in 
South Dakota, whether it is wheat or corn or soybeans or livestock, or 
any of the areas in the Midwest. Those rural areas do not have a lot of 
people, but we grow a lot of food and we raise a lot of crops. It is 
the family farmers who are doing that.
  There has been some discussion about who it benefits and who it 
helps. Granted, when we went across the country and had hearings, I 
went to places in the United States that I am not all that familiar 
with in terms of their farming techniques and practices. We went to 
California and we listened to people who raised fruits and vegetables, 
and we went to Kentucky and heard from people who grow tobacco. Those 
are not things that I am intimately familiar with when it comes to 
farming practices and techniques.
  Yet we had to structure a balance in this bill that takes into 
consideration all the various aspects of agriculture, all the types of 
producer groups around this country. And we heard from all of them. The 
committee was diligent in gathering testimony and taking written record 
and hours and hours and hours of testimony from producers from all 
across the United States about what they wanted to see in a new farm 
bill.
  What we came up with was this product. Granted, it may not be 
perfect. There were things in here that I would like to change, there 
are things I would like included, there are things I would probably 
like to have taken out. But the reality is, this is a balance; and we 
have to do our best to accommodate all the various interests.
  I want to tell Members something: the environmentalists did not get 
slighted in this bill. The EQIP program is the Environmental Quality 
Incentive Program. It is currently funded at about $200 million a year. 
This bill increases that to $1.2 billion a year. The reason there are 
so many people lined up because there is not enough funding is because 
it was not funded adequately.

                              {time}  1500

  This bill address that problem. The environmental communities, the 
conservation communities, they were all heard from. Everybody had an 
opportunity. We spent 18 months, 18 months to get to where we are 
today. We have a balance. Everybody may not like it, but the reality is 
we have to take what we have and work with it.
  We have farms in South Dakota, on average about 1,300 acres. There 
are places I saw when I went across this country. We have bigger 
gardens in South Dakota than some of the farms that people are talking 
about here on the floor today, those small acreages. I understand that. 
Everybody comes to this debate wanting to make sure that their views 
are represented. But the fact of the matter is that we have to

[[Page 18830]]

find and strike that balance that represents all of the agricultural 
interests and the conservation interests and the environmental 
interests and try and do it in a way and put a bill together that is 
good for American agriculture. We have tried to do that with this 
legislation.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, what I would simply say, inasmuch as the 
authors of this amendment are well intended, that if this amendment is 
adopted to this bill, it will destroy what is a very fragile and 
delicate balance which has been built up over the last 18 months with 
thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of testimony, and hours 
and hours and hours of hearing from the groups who have an interest in 
this debate.
  It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we move forward and that we 
defeat the amendment, that we adopt the final bill, and make sure that 
those farmers in places like South Dakota who are producing the food 
and fiber that is feeding the world get out of this economic recession 
that they have been in for the last 5 years. It is not new to them. We 
are talking about a recession in this country now, but believe me, the 
people in my State and in the Midwest and the rural areas that grow the 
food know what this recession is, because they have been in it for the 
last 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about food security for America. That is what 
this debate is about. We need to keep this balance together and move 
this bill forward and do it so that we can get a farm bill passed and 
signed into law.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been through five of these debates on farm bills 
now over my almost 23 years here, and at this point in time I usually 
come to the same conclusion. I come back and think of the words of Will 
Rogers when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so 
much, it's them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.''
  As I have listened to so many well-intentioned individuals who 
support this amendment, which I am very enthusiastically opposed to, we 
tend to stretch the truth for all good and valid purposes. Let me say 
this. As I attended all of the 10 field hearings last year and most, if 
not all, of every one of the full committee hearings this year, I, at 
some point in time, acknowledged that this was going to be the greenest 
farm bill in the five that I have participated in and I was going to be 
supporting it.
  To those that criticize us for not having a green enough farm bill, 
look at it compared to, we have heard the numbers, a 78 percent 
increase in conservation. Now, I wanted $5 billion. I could have stood 
on this floor with those of my colleagues who are for the Boehlert 
amendment today and argued for them. In fact, I did. Earlier this year, 
when I supported the Blue Dog budget, we had $5 billion a year for 
conservation. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) voted no. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) voted no. I can go down the list of everyone else 
who were original cosponsors of the bill, that when they had a chance 
to put the money in to do what they say today, they did not do it. 
Which is fine.
  I want to say right up front, anybody who wants to challenge me, 
anybody who wants to enter into a little debate, I will willing to talk 
to them. I will not be offended if they interrupt me. I think we need a 
little discussion on these points because some of our colleagues are 
going to get a little confused about what the facts are. I would 
support more. But, remember, the budget that we passed gave the 
Committee on Agriculture $79 billion to work with. Now, I lost, you 
won. I worked with my chairman to bring a bill to the floor, $79 
billion, of which we spent $5.5 on emergency; and we have $73.5 left. 
Fine. I would love to do more for the commodities that my colleagues 
want to take away from.
  In fact, I have a difficult time convincing my farmers and other 
farmers in the country that having a bill that gives you 1990 price 
guarantees is a good bill. Now, some of my colleagues would cut from 
that. This amendment that is before us, you just say we are going to 
hold harmless 90 percent and we are going to take it from 10 percent. 
Now, the 90 percent that you hold harmless are landlords, retirees, 
hobby farmers, investors, and some producers, some producers. The 10 
percent are all producers that happen to produce 85 percent of all of 
the food and fiber that is produced in this country.
  Now, would we like to do more? Absolutely. The problem the committee 
had was we had to balance competing interests. We had nutrition 
concerns. I am proud of the nutrition title and most everyone in this 
body on both sides of the aisle that are concerned about feeding the 
hungry people and doing more are also supportive of this bill.
  I would love to do more for rural development. I could do it, but we 
did not have the money. And we get criticized because we are busting 
the budget. The President says we are busting the budget. No, we are 
not. We are not. The budget passed. I would love to do more in the area 
of research. We can justify it. But the Committee on Agriculture, 51 of 
us, had to look at the competing interests and had to put together a 
bill that would do the best possible job we could for each of those, 
and that was our judgment.
  Now, I do not begrudge anybody for coming in here and having a 
different opinion. I do not. In fact, that is why we asked for an open 
rule. But anyone that votes for this amendment and expects us to move 
forward with a balanced bill, you are going to be absolutely and 
completely disappointed. It cannot be done. The chairman has stated it 
very clearly, I support him 100 percent, and to all of those who have 
other interests on my side of the aisle, be careful what you vote for 
lest you might get it. This is the best possible bill we could bring to 
this body to send to the other body for the President's consideration, 
based on the art of the possible, based on the competing interests.
  Now, I find it interesting that when we start talking about payments, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin said, 174 percent of the net farm income 
last year was government payments, and yet somehow the gentleman 
proposes to cut those and feels that he is going to be benefited.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Stenholm was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that so many of my 
colleagues are overlooking or misreading is that if we are going to 
have conservation on farms, the farmer has to have some money in which 
to put up his 25 to 50 percent of the matching funds. If we take away 
the farm income, there will be no conservation on the ground, other 
than those who happen to be buying the land that are not farmers. Those 
of the more upper-incomed among us, who have the money through other 
occupations, that buy the land are the ones that will use these 
conservation funds if we take away the ability of the American farmer 
to make a profit on his farm.
  That is what this amendment does today. We take away that ability, 
and somehow we have allowed ourselves to be convinced by some other 
folks who have an entirely different agenda from what agriculture ought 
to be, we have allowed them to convince us that we are going to be 
helping farmers. Could not be farther from the truth.
  It was fascinating, listening to the dairy argument earlier today in 
which we were concerned about dairy farmers and developers. Developers 
will love this amendment. Farmers will hurt badly if this amendment 
should pass.
  Mr. Chairman, I most sincerely ask my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, oppose this amendment, stick with the committee regarding this 
bill. It is the best possible compromise that we can have that meets 
all of the competing interests, not just a few.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong opposition

[[Page 18831]]

to this amendment. I want to talk about two different aspects of this 
bill.
  First of all, times are tough out in agriculture country right now. I 
do not care what farmers are growing, what part of the country they are 
in. We are seeing tough times from the standpoint of the hazards that 
farmers have to deal with, whether it is weather, whether it is 
hurricanes or some combination of both; but the biggest problem that 
farmers have out there today is that we are seeing the lowest commodity 
prices we have seen across the spectrum in 30 years. It does not make 
any difference whether it is corn in the Midwest or peanuts or cotton 
in my part of the world, farming is a tough, tough business today.
  What the chairman and the ranking member did with this base farm bill 
is to come up with a proposal that actually provides a safety net for 
our farmers. The trigger is that if prices are high our farmers are not 
going to get government help; but if prices are low, they are going to 
get extended a helping hand from the Federal Government to help them 
out. And that is the way it ought to be.
  This bill takes about $2 billion a year out of the commodity side of 
this farm bill and puts it into conservation. Do we need to concentrate 
on conservation? Sure we do. But what does this base bill do? This base 
bill takes an additional $37 billion over the next 10 years and puts it 
into conservation programs. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), 
the chairman of the subcommittee, did an excellent job of putting more 
money into conservation; but the one thing that we never need to forget 
in this town is that the biggest environmentalists and the biggest 
conservationists in the world are our farmers. We do not make a living 
off the land. The farmer makes a living off the land, and they want to 
do everything they can to conserve and preserve their land.
  Now, I am a sportsman. I, along with the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Peterson), cochaired the Sportsmens' Caucus the last 2 years. I 
love to hunt and fish as much as anybody in the world. We are 
conservationists as hunters and fishermen, and we appreciate the 
outdoors. But what we need is more farmers producing more grains to 
feed the wildlife that we love to hunt, and we need more farmers 
protecting the fields and streams that we love to fish in. How do we do 
that? Do we do that by providing farm programs that pay people not to 
grow products, or do we do that by paying farmers who are having a 
tough time with commodity prices being what they are and encourage them 
to do a better job of being more efficient and growing more and better 
quality products so that we can enjoy the outdoors?
  Mr. Chairman, I think the answer is pretty simple. I encourage a no 
vote on this amendment.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The farm bill before us, Mr. Chairman, restores a critical piece to 
the safety net that will keep family farmers on the land. That piece is 
protection when prices collapse, because it does not matter how good a 
farmer you are, if you are paid less the elevator for your crop than it 
costs you to grow it, you are going to grow out of business.
  Now, my problem with the Kind amendment is that it takes money away 
from that safety net for family farmers and puts it over into the 
conservation programs. I think that conservation is an imperative 
national goal; I also think it is an inherent part of how our family 
farmers operate. They cannot foul up the land. That is where they live. 
That is what produces their income. They are the greatest land stewards 
we will ever find.
  I am very intrigued and interested by the notion that we ought to 
structure ways of paying farmers for the conservation practices they 
implement on their land for all of us. But not this way, not with this 
amendment, not by giving them the appearance of something on the one 
hand and taking away something very real, very tangible, protection 
when prices collapse, on the other hand.
  It has been estimated that this amendment would cost the family 
farmers in my State more than $300 million over 3 years, more than $100 
million a year farm income lost if the Kind amendment would pass. That 
is a hit we cannot take. We have people that are using machinery that 
is wrecked. They cannot afford new, they just make do.
  We have areas of the land that are literally depopulating because the 
economics, the fundamental ability to make it on a farm has been placed 
at such risk when we have a farm program without safety net price 
protection. That is why we need the bill, and that is why we must 
reject this amendment. Again, do not get me wrong. Conservation: good 
thing, bad thing? Of course it is a good thing. Should we look at ways 
to reward farmers for their stewardship practices? I think we should.

                              {time}  1515

  But what is before us right now is a farm bill at last putting in 
price protection for farmers, and we cannot play fast and loose with 
this imperative of fixing the farm program. First things first. The 
first thing is price protection for farmers. They desperately need it.
  This whole conservation issue, let us continue to evaluate it. Maybe 
more can be done in the Senate. This was withdrawn before a vote in the 
Committee on Agriculture. It did not receive a considered discussion. 
It did not even go to a committee vote. So for us to come over to the 
House floor and kind of stomp around and start rewriting in wholesale 
fashion the farm bill is a terrible idea, especially when it takes away 
the money we need to restore the safety net for price protection.
  There is another feature to the bill that I think we want to 
consider. That is the $3.5 billion we have been able to add for 
nutrition funding. If this amendment would pass, that effort is also 
placed at great risk. If this amendment passes, the bill may be down 
the tubes, taking with it the extra funding critically needed to 
address some of the shortcomings in the assistance we need to those who 
cannot afford food.
  I commend the sponsor of the amendment. I know his heart is in the 
right place. He has fundamentally a very interesting idea, but 
strategically, those of us who care about agriculture, and broader than 
that, those of us who care about the Nation's food supply, should not 
do this this afternoon. It tips over the farm bill at a time when we 
have to fix it so badly.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in 
support of the bill as reported.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak today in opposition to the Kind-
Boehlert-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment and in support of HR 2646 as 
reported.
  The 80% increase to conservation programs proposed by HR 2646 is 
proof that this congress believes in the protection of the nation's 
natural resources. With an over 800% increase to the EQIP program and 
the proposed Grassland Reserve program, those who make their living 
through best management practices will receive the tools needed to 
protect and enhance the environment. The conservation title in this 
Bill meets the needs of the nation's farmer's and ranchers while 
maintaining an affordable and abundant food supply and a clean and 
healthy environment. The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act started us in the 
right direction in making conservation a vital part of farm policy. The 
popularity of the EQIP program born out of that legislation is proof 
that farmers and ranchers respond when given the proper tools. In my 
district over 30% of those who apply to receive cost share under the 
EQIP program are rejected not because of their worthiness but because 
of insufficient funding. HR 2646 will make those projects a reality.
  Now is not the time to rewrite the conservation title of the farm 
bill with an amendment that is confusing at best. Chairman Combest and 
the AG committee have spent the past two years holding more than 50 
hearings throughout the U.S. to gain input to the bill that we are 
considering today. They have listened to producers of livestock, 
organic growers, crop farmers, government agencies and those who are 
concerned about our natural resources. Now the proposed amendment 
before us threatens to undo that work, not only

[[Page 18832]]

of the committee, but by the 100's of people who took time away from 
their daily schedules to help craft what is before us today.
  I stand here today to urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment and support the Conservation Title of HR 2646 as written. It 
is the right thing to do for those on the front lines of protecting our 
environment and conserving our natural resources for future 
generations.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in respectful opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and I 
appreciate very much the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Combest) about getting back to the facts.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture reflected earlier 
today, we have only had 36 hours to review the contents of the Kind 
amendment, but I have made an effort to do that. In recent weeks there 
has been a lot of talk about the large backlog of farmers and ranchers 
who are waiting to participate in the USDA's conservation programs. The 
proposal today suggests that the answer to that would be to shift 
nearly $2 billion from commodity support programs to conservation.
  Before we accept this rhetoric, Mr. Chairman, I invite Members to 
break down the dollars and look at the facts of the Kind amendment and 
see how they purport to deal with this conservation backlog.
  First, the Kind amendment allocates funding for several programs at 
levels substantially beyond what the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service has indicated is necessary to address the number of outstanding 
applications.
  For example, in the case of the farmland protection program, the NRCS 
estimates it would take an additional $281 million to meet current 
demand. Yet, the Kind amendment funds this program at $500 million per 
year.
  Another example: The wildlife habitat incentives program. The NRCS 
has stated it would take $19 million to meet demand, while the Kind 
amendment allocates $500 million per year.
  When looking at the funding level for conservation programs, we 
cannot lose sight of the fact that these programs are voluntary in 
nature. In other words, the money does no good unless there is an 
equivalent level of demand from producers to use them.
  Moreover, we cannot forget that these programs also involve cost 
share assistance, and if producers do not have an adequate safety net 
to sustain the bottom line, money available for cost-share arrangements 
will likewise go unused.
  Point number two, as we look at the Kind amendment, several hurdles 
in the amendment will actually prevent these funds from assisting a 
large portion of America's farmers and ranchers with critical 
conservation needs. There are significant amounts of targeted and 
earmarked funding. The Kind amendment is actually riddled with numerous 
restrictions that target funding towards specific geographic regions 
and earmark program money for particular issue areas.
  For example, the legislation would spend over $1 billion for a pilot 
program available to only five impaired watersheds. Similarly, it would 
require that over 40 percent of the $14 billion in EQUIP monies be 
spent on just four specific environmental efforts.
  Further, the Kind amendment pumps money into programs which have a 
low producer interest, because this legislation has been written or 
encouraged by the environmental lobby, rather than by actual farmers.
  Lastly, this legislation promotes pork barrel spending. Rather than 
responding to producer requests gathered throughout all of the hearings 
over the last 2 years, both on Capitol Hill and around the country, the 
Kind amendment spends large sums of money on projects which do nothing 
but feed an already thriving government bureaucracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not represent the thriving government bureaucracy. 
I do not represent an environmental lobby that looks at a 78 percent 
increase in conservation funding and says, that is not enough. I 
represent farmers in Indiana. For that reason, I very respectfully 
oppose the Kind amendment, and urge my colleagues to join me in doing 
likewise.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kind-Boehlert-
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment, and I thank them for their leadership on 
this issue of conservation policy for our Nation's farmland. I, for 
one, believe the farm bill has room for this amendment, and in fact, I 
believe the bill is improved with it.
  Mr. Chairman, my district, Marin and Sonoma Counties, just across the 
Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, is very fortunate to have 
productive working farmland like dairies and vineyards. In fact, we 
provide 50 percent of the Bay area's milk products, and, of course, 
Members all know about Sonoma County wines.
  It is because of the diversity of agriculture that the Sixth District 
of California has one of the lowest unemployment rates and one of the 
highest income levels in this Nation, and it is because of the 
agriculture that I represent one of the most beautiful areas in the 
world.
  The dairies in particular in my district are mainly small, family-
owned operations that have been in business for four or five 
generations, and because many of these dairies are within 30 miles of 
downtown San Francisco, preserving these productive lands is a top 
priority of my constituents, and it should be for the Congress.
  But my farmers are often frustrated by the lack of funds and 
technical assistance available to them to protect water supplies, 
reduce pesticide applications, provide adequate habitat for wildlife, 
enhance food safety, or, in general, protect their farms and our open 
space from encroaching development.
  Less than 10 percent of Federal farm spending is directed towards 
conservation. Without the Kind-Boehlert amendment, farm policy will 
continue to fail to keep up with the growing demand over the next 5 
years. That is why the House must pass the Kind-Boehlert amendment and 
reward farmers and ranchers like my constituents, who want to 
participate in voluntary incentive-based conservation efforts.
  If my colleague's amendment succeeds, commodity crop farmers would 
still receive twice as much funding as they received under the 1996 
farm bill, an 11 percent increase over current funding levels. In 
addition to helping commodity crop farmers by passing the Kind-Boehlert 
amendment, we would be wisely investing in farm policy that also 
recognizes the value of small family farmers.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is fair and smart public policy. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the earlier speakers made a comment about how 
this amendment would be bad for the watershed. How I would like to 
respond to that is that contained in this amendment is a new approach 
to protecting watersheds so that we do not have to have each individual 
farmer apply for the conservation programs that will improve water 
quality, but we can do it with a number of farmers getting together, a 
number of farmers getting together in one State, or we could do it with 
a number of farmers getting together in a multi-State region which is 
protecting, truly, a broad watershed area.
  So contained in this amendment is a specific program with specific 
criteria to use agriculture and the conservation program to protect the 
water quality in a watershed.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind Amendment to 
the Farm Bill. H.R. 2646, as reported by the House Agriculture 
Committee, provides an unprecedented 80% increase in soil and water 
conservation programs above current spending levels that firmly meets 
the needs of America's farm families. This bill builds on the popular 
and important conservation programs established in previous bills. The 
conservation section devotes over

[[Page 18833]]

$16 billion over 10 years to soil, water and wildlife programs. It 
increases CRP acreage to 39.2 million acres, WRP to 1.5 million acres, 
creates a Grasslands Reserve Program up to 2 million acres, funds WHIP 
to $500 million, and finally, the conservation title will help MANY 
many family farms in North Carolina by funding the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program at $1.285 billion, including a $600 million 
fund is created in EQIP to address surface and ground water 
conservation issues, including cost share for more efficient irrigation 
systems. Obviously, this bill will go far in helping our farmers 
continue be our Nation's best land stewards.
  To my colleagues who support this amendment, I ask why this was not 
brought up in Committee? At no time during the Committee's 
consideration of this bill did Mr. Kind offer his amendment. Why? 
Because he knew he didn't have the votes to pass it, and America's 
farmers adamantly oppose it. In addition, I would add that the 
sportsmen in my district oppose this amendment. This amendment 
undermines all the hard work we've done and it undermines future 
conservation benefits and I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would and pick up on the remarks of the gentleman 
from Texas about the valid and important issues in this discussion.
  Simply put, Mr. Chairman, to my colleagues who support this 
amendment, I ask them, why was this amendment not brought up in the 
committee? The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) said that they 
discussed it. That is fine. But what he did not say was that as this 
discussion took place, it was obvious that he did not have the votes in 
committee to pass it.
  What does that mean? It means that the people of this House who are 
most interested in and probably most informed about agriculture did not 
support his well-intentioned amendment. Sportsmen and farmers in my 
district in North Carolina also very strongly oppose this amendment, as 
I do.
  An interesting contrast, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) 
spoke very eloquently in opposition to this amendment. He also had an 
amendment which he brought up in committee, and we discussed it over 
and over and over for hours and hours. The amendment was defeated, and 
that was the end of that. It is not here on the floor, as this 
amendment is and should not be.
  Because of the nature of this amendment and because of the need for 
balance in this bill, please join me in opposing this amendment, which 
undermines all the hard work, the field hearings, all of the 
information that has been gathered, and it undermines conservation 
benefits.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do thank the committee for this important discussion. 
I find it exceedingly valuable.
  I am one of the people who the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
referred to who is not an expert in agriculture. I do not pretend to 
be. But it is important to me, and I took the time this summer to talk 
to people in my State who are the experts, people on the board of 
agriculture, practicing farmers, leaders in the industry.
  They made it clear to me that this was an opportunity for this 
Congress to seize the opportunity to begin reforming agriculture for 
the next century. The current system, I was told, and I dearly believe, 
and nothing that I have read in connection with the debate here today 
leads me to feel otherwise, that is, that our system was great to lead 
us out of the Depression, and it does indeed continue to help many 
economic interests, but it does not, for instance, help what happens in 
my State for the majority of people who are involved with agriculture.
  This amendment that we are debating here today is an opportunity for 
us to step forward that is going to make a difference in our community. 
I would like to dwell on one particular item, the farmland protection 
program, which would receive much needed increased funding under this 
amendment.
  There currently is a backlog of over $250 million for the voluntary 
purchase of conservation easements under this program. The previous 
farm bill in 1996 and the currently proposed farm bill did not and will 
not come close to providing the funding necessary to meet the current 
waiting list of farmers. Right now, three out of four who apply to 
participate are turned away.
  The current bill limits the farmland protection program to $50 
million a year. This amendment reauthorizes the farmland protection 
program through the year 2011, funded at $100 million in fiscal year 
2002, increasing to one-half a billion dollars annually by 2006.
  It is important to understand that the farmland protection program 
does not just benefit farmers, it benefits communities everywhere. The 
farmland protection program, as its name implies, allows the farmers to 
continue working the land. They receive payment for doing what they 
intend to do, keeping the land as farmland. This is particularly 
important in the vast amounts of prime farmland around our metropolitan 
areas, where increasing land values make it difficult for farmers to 
keep their land as farmland.

                              {time}  1530

  Nationally this prime farmland produces 85 percent of domestic fruit 
and vegetables. Almost 80 percent of our dairy production takes place 
in what we are calling urban-influenced counties. They are under 
relentless pressure. There were 3.2 million acres converted to 
nonagricultural uses between 1992 and 1997, double the rate of previous 
years. There are 90 million acres that are threatened by sprawl.
  When I was born, the number one agricultural county in the United 
States, and this is only half a century ago, was Los Angeles. What 
county is going to be lost next?
  We are developing land at twice the rate of the increase in 
population growth. But it is not just the farmers that benefit. We have 
talked about how disconnected the general public is from the practice 
of agriculture. We are protecting this land for agricultural purposes 
around the metropolitan area to make it easier for the public to 
understand how valuable it is and that sugar does not just come from 
candy bars and fruit and vegetables do not come from tin cans.
  The Farmland Protection Act helps the surrounding communities by 
saving taxpayer money. Farmland or open space costs on average about 
one-third of the amount of money as it produces from taxes. Residential 
development, to the contrary, costs local governments about 25 percent 
more. Cities and towns can save billions of dollars in municipal water 
and treatment costs. Protecting wetlands and streams prevents the cost 
of water treatment downstream.
  Our communities and taxpayers want farmland protection. Survey 
research demonstrates that the public would like to have their Federal 
tax dollars by strong majorities used to keep farmland from being 
developed. Seventy-five percent think that farm support payments should 
require farmers to practice conservation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Blumenauer was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, supporting this amendment is a step 
away from the Depression era of farm support. It is an opportunity to 
us to step forward, to help farmers voluntarily protect their land, 
save tax dollars, meet the needs that are building up now, and help us, 
in a State like Oregon, help protect farmland for generations to come.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the base bill before us. The 
committee has done a good job of balancing various interests before it. 
I am pleased that the committee has significantly increased the 
conservation title of the bill but has done so in a manner that does 
not jeopardize the rest of the agricultural needs of our Nation.
  Let us look at what the base bill does, H.R. 2646. It includes an 
average

[[Page 18834]]

of $1.285 billion per year in the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program or EQIP, plus an additional fund of $60 million per year to 
address water issues. It increases total acreage in the conservation 
program to 39.2 million acres. It allows an additional 1.5 million 
acres to be added to the Wetlands Reserve Program. It provides $500 
million over the life of the farm bill to eradicate the backlog and 
provide for new enrollment in the Farmland Protection Program. It 
increases funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, or WHIP, 
from $25 million per year this year to $50 million a year by the year 
2011. It increases enrollment in the grasslands reserve program to 2 
million acres.
  The ranking minority member was quite accurate when he said this is a 
green bill. There are good provisions that continue to move us forward 
in this bill in the whole arena of conservation. I joined the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and other Members the last time we 
considered the farm bill 5 years ago in restoring cuts that have been 
made in the conservation title. That was a good thing to do then and 
that was good policy.
  The bill before us continues in that responsible plan. The amendment 
before us I think raises some serious concerns. It raises some 
financial concerns. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Combest) raised some serious concerns about the possible 
serious adverse consequences associated with the Kind amendment on our 
budget.
  We have just approved a $50 billion program to provide defense needs, 
disaster needs, to address airline concerns. We are now talking about 
an even larger package to get the economy going again, something in the 
range of $75 billion. I think we need to proceed very cautiously.
  The Kind-Boehlert amendment, although maybe well intended, will 
mandate additional spending and will leave less room for dealing with 
potential economic problems that could arise for our farmers.
  I join the Florida Farm Bureau in supporting the base bill and 
opposing the Kind-Boehlert amendment. The base bill has the support of 
the Florida Association of Conservation Districts and the Florida Fish 
and Wildlife Commission. The Florida Farm Bureau opposes the Kind-
Boehlert amendment, and I urge my Florida colleagues to join me in 
supporting the work of the Committee on Agriculture and to vote against 
the Kind-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include with my remarks a letter from the Florida 
Farm Bureau.

                               Florida Farm Bureau Federation,

                              Gainesville, FL, September 27, 2001.
     Hon. David J. Weldon,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Bldg., 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Weldon: Congress will be taking up H.R. 
     2646, the Farm Bill, next week and we recently sent you a 
     letter relaying our support of the bill. However, the section 
     of the Farm Bill that deals with conservation has received a 
     lot of attention in the media recently and there's an effort 
     underway by Representative Kind to offer substitute language 
     to the bill which is based on his legislation, H.R. 2375. On 
     behalf of our members I would like to relay to you our 
     support of the House Agriculture Committee-passed 
     conservation language and provide you our concerns with H.R. 
     2375.
       First off, let me say that H.R. 2375 does make an effort to 
     increase funding for technical assistance and other important 
     conservation programs. However, the increased funding does 
     not necessarily mean that Florida producers will be able to 
     access the added funding. Several requirements illustrated in 
     the bill prohibit many of our producers from being eligible 
     for conservation funds and the additional funds are carved 
     out of other parts of the bill which is already stretched to 
     meet the needs of production agriculture.
       To elaborate on our concerns with H.R. 2375, I offer this:
       H.R. 2375 prohibits a producer who is subject to an 
     environmental permit under the federal Clean Water Act from 
     receiving cost-share assistance under the Environmental 
     Quality Incentives Program. This provision is not acceptable 
     given that pending revised clean water rules dealing with 
     CAFO's and AFO's could subject a large majority, if not all, 
     livestock producers in Florida to regulation. This provision 
     would keep a large percentage of our dairy and poultry 
     farmers from being able to access cost-share funding for 
     conservation practices.
       H.R. 2375 would push an unmanageable level of funding into 
     the Department of Agriculture for conservation programs and 
     this increased funding does come at a cost for farmers in 
     other regions of the country. Without an adequate framework 
     in place, this money will do little to improve the 
     environmental quality for our working lands resulting in the 
     wasteful and inefficient use of precious taxpayer dollars. 
     H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001, increases 
     conservation funding 75 percent above the current baseline. 
     To fund environmental programs proposed in H.R. 2375 we will 
     have to raid funds already allocated in other important areas 
     of the bill. Politically this is not the right avenue to take 
     and we should not cause a situation where sectors of the 
     agriculture industry will be trying to benefit at the 
     detriment of others. The Kind bill makes only modest gains in 
     Florida's level of conservation funding because a large 
     percentage of the funds go to programs such as Conservation 
     Reserve Program (CRP) and these programs are not widely 
     utilized by Florida's producers.
       H.R. 2375 would place restrictions on producers that have 
     nothing to do with conservation. For example, this 
     legislation directs the Secretary to consider the extent to 
     which livestock producers medicate their animals in selecting 
     contracts under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 
     Such restrictions would render these programs useless for 
     mainstream agriculture.
       H.R. 2375 contains extensive provisions for forestry yet 
     none of the central forestry organizations support this 
     legislation. The Society of American Foresters, the National 
     Association of State Foresters, the National Council on 
     Private Forests, the National Association of Professional 
     Forestry Schools and Colleges, and the American Forest and 
     Paper Association oppose this bill. They oppose H.R. 2375 
     because its forestry provisions cannot be implemented. The 
     legislation is vague, restrictive and not based on sound 
     science.
       We realize that H.R. 2646 is not perfect when it comes to 
     the conservation section but we believe that it is a more 
     practicable and realistic approach for Florida's farmers and 
     ranchers. It is our understanding that the proponents of H.R. 
     2375 have an amended version of their bill that will be 
     offered when H.R. 2646 ``The Farm Bill'' is taken up by the 
     House. We have made inquiries to the sponsor of H.R. 2375 in 
     an effort to see if our concerns have been addressed and no 
     one has been able to provide us that assurance. Therefore, we 
     ask that you consider our concerns and not support this 
     effort to amend the conservation title of H.R. 2646.
       If you need to discuss this issue in more detail or have 
     any questions please contact Ray Hodge in our office. He will 
     be in the Capitol next week and will come by your office to 
     discuss this and other issues with your agriculture staff 
     person. Thank you for considering our concerns and your 
     willingness to support the issues important to the livelihood 
     of Florida farmers and ranchers
           Sincerely,
                                                Carl B. Loop, Jr.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say what a wonderful job the chairman and the 
ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture have done. I appreciate 
very much the hard work the gentlemen have put into this.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that I think the sponsors of this 
amendment mean well. The people that support this amendment have the 
best of intentions.
  When I ran for office first in 1996, it was interesting to me that 
all of my opponents suddenly had become farmers. If they were not 
farmers themselves, in some way they could contrive, they will know a 
farmer or their grandfather was a farmer or they would know a lot about 
a farmer or they had seen a farmer someplace or they had seen a crop 
someplace. But they all wanted to be related to farmers in some way or 
another.
  I found that interesting today that suddenly we have this great 
outpouring of knowledge about agriculture in this body.
  I would suspect, and I do not know for sure, that none of the 
sponsors of this amendment, and very likely none of the people that 
have spoken in favor of it, have ever raised a crop or produced any 
significant amount of food.
  I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that our job is to make sure that this 
country has a food supply, a reliable, safe, reasonably priced food 
supply, and in the effort to produce this, we must protect our air and 
water quality, and that is what this base bill does. It has been said 
over and over that our food policy in this country and our farm policy 
in this country is a failure. How can we say that when our producers 
are the best there has ever been, they are the most efficient and we 
have the most reliable, the safest and the most reasonably priced food 
supply of any Nation

[[Page 18835]]

in the world? Our farmers are on the edge. They simply are not going to 
do it any more.
  I would submit to the Members a report about USDA's last quarterly 
stocks estimate. One of the last paragraphs in that report says if 
there is one thought for the Members to be left with regarding today's 
stock report, it is that U.S. stocks of every commodity except corn are 
smaller today than a year ago, and in some cases dramatically smaller. 
Our stocks of food in this country are shrinking.
  The national security interest is served by our farmers being able to 
stay in business. Certainly they are not getting rich. Most of them are 
not even making the cost of production, but one thing I can tell my 
colleagues that they do not need is for someone else to create one more 
way where the Federal Government can come and tell them what they have 
to do with their land.
  This amendment would destroy the safety net and drive production 
offshore, and it most certainly would cause consolidation, and if we 
want to see what corporate farms really look like, we can see what the 
result of this amendment would be because it would cause dramatic 
consolidation.
  The worst thing we can do to conservation is to continue to have a 
situation where our farmers cannot stay in business. Poor folks have 
poor ways and there is nothing they can do about it because that is all 
they have to work with.
  We do not need a social engineering program. We need a balanced bill 
and that is what this base bill is. I wonder, if this amendment is such 
a good idea for farmers, why in the world is there not one, not one 
farm organization supporting this bill? I think that pretty well says 
it.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I rise to oppose, strenuously oppose the amendment that is being 
offered here today. The House Committee on Agriculture has spent 
months, years now, beginning in Kansas at the Kansas State Fair 2 years 
ago September, taking input from farmers about what we can do to 
address the crisis that we face in agriculture. That crisis is real.
  We face the circumstances in which the farmers of this country will 
not be farming. The economic conditions that American farmers and 
ranchers face are serious and getting worse. My farmers talk about what 
they do to serve to the next week, to the next month, to the next year. 
They talk about if things get any worse they have no option but to sell 
the farm and move to town.
  The average age of a farmer in Kansas is 58\1/2\ years old. There is 
no next generation waiting to take over the farm because there is no 
profitability in agriculture, and the idea that we can remedy this 
situation by putting more money elsewhere than into farmers' income is 
terribly, terribly flawed.
  There will be no farmers as stewards of the land absent an income in 
which to continue farming. What do we expect ourselves to do when the 
farmers are no longer on the land? Do we expect us to hire government 
employees to go out and manage the land so that they can perform 
conservation practices that our farmers are practicing today?
  I care greatly about the use of land, about water quality, about 
water quantity. There is no greater conservation environmental issue in 
the State of Kansas than the quality of water, and if we have a future 
in the State of Kansas, it is because we have a clean and adequate 
water supply. I am proud of the efforts of the House Committee on 
Agriculture to address conservation environmental issues.
  We have spent a lot of time and a lot of effort taking a lot of 
input. Our ability to have the people necessary to be in the fields 
performing conservation practices is gone, absent the kind of 
assistance in the commodity title of this farm bill.
  The reality is that life on the farm is tough. It is getting tougher, 
and if we care about conservation, if we care about the environment, we 
will make certain that those farmers and ranchers are there and we will 
oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert).
  We need the assistance or we are going to have larger and larger 
farms. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) is absolutely right, if 
we want to see greater concentration in agriculture, put our farmers 
out of business and then only those who are large will be left.
  This issue is at the core of whether or not we care about America, 
and especially whether or not we care about rural America and if we 
want children in the schools across the State of Kansas and across 
rural areas of the country and if we want people shopping on Main 
Street, the critical issue we face is whether or not our farm families 
can make ends meet, and they are not doing it today, and they will not 
be helped with the passage of this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I represent the farmers and ranchers and small woodland owners whose 
voice is not heard here and have been ignored in some of the previous 
debate by other Members.

                              {time}  1545

  These commodity programs flow to a favored few. Now, certainly some 
of them are producing crops that are vital to feed our Nation. Others 
are producing surplus cotton and other crops and getting subsidized for 
that. It is an extraordinarily market-distorting thing. Now, usually 
that side of the aisle is arguing for markets, but in this case they 
are arguing for market-distorting subsidies. Many of the same people 
who are arguing against this amendment were gung ho for the Freedom to 
Farm bill a number of years ago. I voted against it. I thought it might 
lead to some of these problems. It has led to a record increase in 
commodity supports.
  And even if this amendment is adopted, there will still be $101 
billion going to the commodity support programs. Now, who does it go 
to, and who would be hurt under this amendment? Well, under this 
amendment, actually 70 percent of the farmers, those who seem to be 
ignored in the debate on that side and by a few on this side, that is 
dairy, ranchers, fruit and vegetables, I have a lot of those, I have 
some dairy, have a few ranchers, do not have peanut, sugar, tobacco, 
and then we have trees, those are my small wood-lot owners, people who 
practice forestry, people who are waiting in line now to get this 
conservation money because of problems we have in recovering our salmon 
runs in the Pacific Northwest. They are lined up. They are not getting 
the money, even with the increase in this bill.
  I appreciate the modest increase in the bill, but more is needed. And 
this money will benefit this 70 percent of the people who are pretty 
much left out of this bill.
  Now, there is another 30 percent. And under this amendment, 27 
percent of them, almost all of them, will be held harmless. But my 
colleagues are right, the top 3 percent, the people who get the largest 
subsidies in this country, the ones we read about and hear about on TV, 
some of them are even TV commentators, they will get a cut. That is 
right, they will get a cut. But they will still get subsidies, very 
substantial subsidies, and we will spread this needed money elsewhere.

  How needed is it? Well, if we refer to this chart, we see, in fact, 
it is quite needed. Right now we are funding conservation at this 
level. This is the demand. We are not matching supply and demand. I 
wish this side of the aisle, which is always for markets, would help us 
better match supply and demand. Here is the demand. Here is the supply.
  Now, true, this bill, the base bill, would actually help a little 
bit. It still does not meet the demand and the backlog. And even if we 
get this amendment, we will not quite match supply and demand. There is 
an extraordinary unmet demand out there, demand that flows to those 
other 70 percent of the farmers, small farmers, truly small farmers, 
who I represent, who are left out of this bill. So we are

[[Page 18836]]

talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill; but we are 
leaving out millions of farmers, small farms, dairy, small wood-lot, 
row crops, fruit and vegetable folks they represent.
  So let us put an end to the rhetoric of saying this is not for 
farmers, this money will not go to farmers, it will put new controls. 
It is a voluntary program, a program that people are lined up to get 
into in my State; and the USDA simply says there is not enough money, 
come back next year, the year after, or the year after. We need that 
funding now. We need these increases. In fact, we need even more than 
will be provided under this amendment.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) was correct 
when he commented on the fact that the supporters of this amendment do 
not come from this industry. I did a quick note. Most are attorneys. 
And I do not fault their desire or their ability or their right to be 
involved in this issue, but I can tell my colleagues that those who 
call themselves environmentalists in this Congress are loving their 
land to death.
  I represent Montana. It happens to be one of the largest 
agricultural-producing States, one of the largest States, and perhaps 
one of the ones most screwed up because of many of the conservation 
practices that are occurring because of this Congress. Let me point out 
to my colleagues what some of this Congress' conservation plans have 
done to us.
  This is what government farming practices look like. This is a forest 
fire. And I will tell my colleagues that underthinned forests kill 
forests every bit as much as overlogged forests. Undergrazed grass 
kills grass every bit as much as overgrazed grass. So we are going to 
exacerbate our problem? Are we going to put more in? Well, then, we 
will kill our land with kindness, and I hope we do not do that.
  This is what a managed environment looks like, so I am not standing 
before my colleagues today and trying to bring up dollars, which it 
seems like the majority of the argument has been on dollars in farmers' 
pockets. This is my first farm bill, and the way things go around here, 
it may be my last. One never knows. But I want to thank the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), 
because if it is my only farm bill that I have an opportunity to speak 
on and to be involved in, I am proud to put my name on something that 
understands American agriculture.
  I came here not anticipating I was going to win every issue. In fact, 
I did not. But I voted for this bill. I supported this bill because it 
truly understands the needs, the desires, the wants of those of us in 
Montana agriculture and American agriculture.
  Now, I was not a supporter of increasing additional conservation act 
money. I use myself as an example. My place is getting smaller. Just 9 
months ago yesterday, I was in the agricultural business. This suit was 
not bought with agricultural money, because I did not have it. I do 
now, because of this job. But as I tried to expand my business, do my 
colleagues know what I could not do? I lost a lot of acreage because of 
the estate tax. I can live with that. I can live with that. But at a 
time when I should have been getting bigger, I got smaller. And as I 
tried to get bigger, my neighbor puts his land in conservation reserve. 
I cannot rent land and I cannot buy land. I could not expand my ranch 
to pay for my children's shoes, their college education, and my 
retirement.
  Now, I might seem a little angry because I am a little angry. Because 
what I see happening in this Congress is that we are attempting to use 
the farmer for an environmental policy in this country, and I believe 
that is misguided. We do not want to see more of this. This is a 
forest, but it is the same in the pasture land. The conservation 
practices that preserve property in this country without active 
management in fact are killing our environment.
  So it is not about jobs, and it is not about money. It is about our 
environment. And what is the best way to manage our environment? This 
bill does, in fact, without this amendment, do that. It maintains 
maximum planting flexibility, it provides countercyclical protection, 
it allows farmers to update their base acreages, it increases 
conservation programs, it addresses trade, research, nutrition, and 
includes one of my favorite issues, rural development and adding value 
to agricultural products. That is how we are going to save the American 
farmer. That is how we are going to create a better environment.
  Support the bill. Kill the amendment.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto the remaining time be 40 minutes, 
equally divided between a proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), 
the author of the amendment, will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes 
of my time be allocated to the cosponsor of the amendment, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) will control 10 minutes in favor of the amendment, 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) will control the time in 
opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of 
the time allocated to the opponents be given to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  We have heard a lot of debate over this amendment in the last few 
hours. My colleagues, this is not about rich farmers against poor 
farmers. It is not about corporate farmers against noncorporate 
farmers. It is not even about conservationists against those who feed 
America. Because our farm families, our row croppers were this 
country's first conservationists. This is about whether we want this 
country to become dependent on other countries for our food and fiber 
the way we have for our oil.
  We spent 8 months in the House Committee on Agriculture, where I sit, 
writing this farm bill in a bipartisan effort. It is not the bill I 
would have written. I am sure the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) 
would have liked to have seen more in it for conservation. I would have 
liked to have seen more in it for row crops. But this is a democracy, 
and in a democracy and in our committee we compromised. And let us 
never forget that that compromise included increasing baseline spending 
for conservation by 78 percent.
  The 1996 farm bill did not work. If this amendment passes, the 2001 
farm bill will not work. Farmers are going broke across the delta, 
across the southern half of Arkansas, and across much of America. 
Despite the fact that they are able to produce yields that they never 
dreamed of just 10 years ago, they cannot control market prices. Market 
prices are down.
  Now, I am not real good in math, I will confess to that, but it does 
not take a rocket scientist to figure it out that if it costs 70 cents 
a pound to grow cotton, and the market price is 40 cents a pound, that 
farmer has to have some help. My farm families do not want to be 
welfare farmers. They do not want to be insurance farmers. But they 
need America to be there for them when market prices are down, just as 
those farm families have been there doing what they know how to do 
best, and that is feed America for many, many generations.
  Many are worried about a recession. If this amendment passes, I 
believe we

[[Page 18837]]

will have a serious recession, not only with our farm families but many 
of the smaller banks located in the delta. This amendment will directly 
take, next year alone, $183.7 million out of the pockets of our farm 
families in Arkansas.
  Finally, let me say this. We all want to try and represent our 
districts. I truly respect the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for 
trying to represent the people of his district. I am trying to 
represent the people of mine so they can continue to feed America.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this really 
misguided amendment.
  The Boehlert/Kind Amendment takes over $9 billion out of the farm 
program (and rural economies) in the first three years and only 
gradually makes available more conservation funds with heavy strings 
attached. This is not what farmers or rural America needs when it is 
currently reeling from 4 years of incredibly depressed prices.
  This amendment replaces the counter-cyclical components of the farm 
bill which is designed to avoid costly ad hoc programs, with statutory 
maximum payments which decline each year to $1.6 billion in the last 
year. If prices fall again in the future, the farm program could not 
respond under this amendment leaving Congress with the choice of 
another farm bailout. The 2 years invested in writing a farm bill that 
will respond to market conditions would be wrecked.
  This amendment cuts program benefits to real farmers. They say their 
cut comes from the top 10% of recipients in each region of the country, 
but that top 10% consists of 100% producers.
  In closing, this amendment pits farmer against farmer. In the most 
ludicrous, but very real case, a farmer with 400 acres would have their 
payment cut by 66%. But the producer with 399 acres would receive every 
bit of their payment. Remember, this is the farm bill, not the 
environmental bill.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), whose State will be one of the many 
beneficiaries of all 50 States under the conservation amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and me.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. If I were not such a civilized soul, I 
would have objected to this agreement. I have been in and out of this 
Chamber all afternoon waiting a chance to speak and I have 5 minutes' 
worth to say. Now I have my 2 minutes to say it in.
  I just want all of my colleagues to know that the Committee on 
Agriculture did not hold a single hearing in New England; that its 
membership does not include any of us; that my friend, the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Moran), could have made exactly the speech he made 
word for word and had the final sentence say, and that is why I support 
the amendment.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues do not understand. Members want a farm 
subsidy program for their farmers. Members want it to be 
countercyclical. The compact is countercyclical, and it does control 
production, and get Members will not even give us a chance to do for 
our farmers what they so desperately want to do for their farmers.
  My colleagues increase the conservation money. I am glad this bill 
does that, but it will take $60 million of EQIP money to help my 
farmers, just the ones that have projects lined up, because we are the 
first State that is going to comply with those AFO/CAFO regulations 
that were put into place in this House to address nonpoint source 
pollution. It has to be done but it's very costly.
  Though my small farmers have no margin. It will cost a million 
dollars a farm for the ten biggest farms in Connecticut and sizable 
dollars for every farm. Where are they going to get it? So increasing 
the funding for EQIP, I appreciate that, but it is not enough for even 
Connecticut. Doubling the money for WHIP from $25 million to $50 
million helps but currently 12 of our landowners are served. There are 
46 applicants unserved right now.
  My colleagues have got to pay more attention to New England and parts 
of the country where we have small farms where people are spending full 
time farming. These are not hobby operations. These are farmers who 
want their kids to take over their farms.
  And they are creative entrepreneurs. For example, we have the most 
progressive manure management program in the Nation, and the 
agricultural research funds will not allow us any money because it is 
an integrated system, and all of our research monies are in silos. Old-
fashioned.
  Mr. Chairman, it pains me as a Republican that my party cannot even 
hear New England farmers. I am going to support this amendment because 
it is the only way I can help the people who depend on land for their 
living.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this amendment. It seems what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have done is bring our 
entire House together. Everybody today is in support of agriculture, 
and I say hallelujah. But do not think for a moment that one bill 
addresses all of the agriculture in the country. I happen to represent 
the most productive agricultural county in the United States. This bill 
does little to help it.
  Monterey County grows 85 crops. No other county in the United States 
grows 85 crops, and it is a $3 billion industry. What is the one thing 
they need? It is to preserve the land. All of this debate has been on 
the side of let us preserve the commodity bank account versus preserve 
the land. We are not going to have any agriculture without land.
  Mr. Chairman, let us support this amendment. I used to be an 
authorizer, and I am an appropriator now. Guess what the appropriators 
lack? It is authorization to put the money where people want it. This 
amendment raises that authorization. It allows the appropriators to 
meet the demand we are talking about to help preserve Ag land.
  In California alone, we have farmers who are offering to sell their 
development rights so that the land will not be urbanized, so it will 
not be lost to agriculture. That queue is $47 million today. The bill 
only authorizes $50 million. Just California could use that entire 
authorization in our one State.
  If my colleagues look at it nationally, farmers on the urban fringe 
face a $280 million backlog. Even the amendment will not bring us up to 
the level of demand. If Members want to preserve agriculture, preserve 
the land that agriculture is grown on, support this amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's 
compliment in calling Members like me a farmer because I have 60 acres 
and happen to live on the farm. But if Members look at the book that 
the USDA put out on food and agriculture policy, they note that this 
farmer group that we have been hearing the proponents of the Kind 
amendment talk about, represent that 62 percent of the farmers are 
rural residential farmers that, quote, ``view farming as an investment 
opportunity and a way to enjoy rural amenities'' they describe that 
they have little dependence on the farm economy for their income, and 
that they typically have incomes comparable to those of nonfarm 
households.
  These are the farmers that we are supposedly neglecting in this 
amendment. We have to focus on the farm bill in the farm bill. I am 
pleased with the way the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have come up with a bill that 
addresses the needs of farmers.
  We have a better safety net for our farmers. There is an 80 percent 
increase in conservation funding. I am an ardent supporter of 
conservation programs and have worked on behalf of conservation; and 
absent the constraints that budgets or public policy

[[Page 18838]]

would allow, this would be a good amendment. But in this amendment we 
are pitting farmer against conservationist, and that is not the way to 
do it.
  We already have a significant increase in the programs that will 
allow the backlog that has been talked about to be taken care of. I, 
like many in my district, understand the importance of a strong 
agricultural economy. We need to have a balanced approach. This bill is 
a balanced approach.
  This amendment would gut the farm program. It would make us have to 
go back to supplemental assistance every year and be damaging to the 
budget. We need to create a bill that is based on the consensus that 
has been developed over the last 2 years. Let us remember to keep 
farmers in the farm bill. Do not vote for this amendment. Vote for 
farmers and oppose the Kind amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert-Kind 
amendment, but also to express my concern about the underlying bill.
  I was here on the floor in 1995 when we adopted the Freedom to Farm 
Act, and I thought it was a step in the right direction. This bill 
codifies a direction that we should not be going. The payments in here 
are for countercyclical commodity farmers, but it is $40 billion over 
10 years. It goes a long way to reducing the farmer's market risk, and 
encourages farmers to grow without regard to market forces.
  What I am concerned about and want to express my concern about is 
what it does fundamentally to put us at risk with our international 
trade policy.
  It is a clear step backwards for U.S. trade when it comes to 
agriculture. It would increase farmer dependency on Uncle Sam; thus, it 
sends a signal to U.S. trading partners and developing worlds that we 
are not serious about our success in another round of global trade 
negotiations where we are arguing that we should get access to their 
markets with our commodities.
  The new language that would give authority to the Secretary of 
Agriculture to shift spending if U.S. subsidy commitments are exceeded, 
that is only an effort to abdicate political responsibility for what 
ought to be good policy in the first place.
  I think the Boehlert-Kind amendment at least moves us from spending 
more in what is called the ``amber box'' programs, those are programs 
that are trade distorting, to programs that are considered nontrade 
distorting, or ``the green box.'' It moves spending from those trade 
distorting programs into the conservation programs, and they are 
considered nondistorting; and, therefore, consistent with the trade 
agreements the Congress and the President have approved.
  In the development of farm policy, we have to lead by example. 
Passing this amendment will help remedy components of a fundamentally 
flawed bill, but we should recognize that it does not completely 
reverse the direction in U.S. trade policy that this legislation would 
have us take.
  I find some reassurance in the President's statement of 
administration policy. The Congress and the President should have the 
ability to help U.S. farmers, and I support the amendment and have 
expressed my concerns about the underlying bill.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, they say a picture is worth a thousand 
words. We have talked a lot about this farm bill and how much it 
increases conservation programs.
  This was the 1996 farm bill. This was seen by many, and stated by 
many of the environmental groups today supporting this amendment, as 
the greenest farm bill that had ever been written. That was 1996.
  Look what we do with conservation programs in this bill. They are 
increased substantially. If Members look at the individual programs and 
how much they go up compared to nonpassage of this bill, it is a 
substantial increase in environmental programs.
  Ducks Unlimited have said they do not support this bill because it 
does not do enough to preserve wetlands. Look at what has happened in 
wetlands over previous years. This is how much we were losing from 1954 
to 1974. Today it is down to this. Look how much of it is lost because 
of agriculture, the top part, and how much is lost in urban areas. It 
is primarily the urban areas.
  This amendment has problems that are unintended. When you idle 
farmland, it not only affects the farmer, it affects every community 
that depends on that farm. This year, in Idaho we idled 150,000 acres 
due to a power buyback because of the energy crisis. I can tell my 
colleagues that businesses in every small community that depend on 
agriculture have seen their businesses decline. Some of them by as much 
as 50 percent, and that is exactly what will happen when we take land 
out and set it aside and do not produce on it.
  We need to make sure that those businesses stay in business and that 
they are doing the job that they can for their communities.
  Some people are concerned about the fiscal impact of this 
legislation. Our hope is that farmers do not have to rely on government 
for payments, that commodity prices cover the cost of raising their 
crops. And if commodity prices go up, we will spend less under the 
underlying bill than we have said it will cost.
  But with the Kind amendment when Congress puts that money into the 
environmental programs, it will be spent regardless of what the 
commodity prices are. That money will be spent, and it will go on 
forever because once we start those programs, we are never going to 
stop them, once we increase that acreage as much as my colleagues want 
to.
  We all are concerned about the environment. We are doing in this bill 
a great deal to improve the environment. Much has been said today about 
the statement of administration policy or SAP, as it is appropriately 
called. I want to say this bluntly. I am sorry I have to say it, but we 
are right and they are wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that once the administration has an opportunity 
to study this bill and to study farm policy the way that this Committee 
on Agriculture has for the last 2.5 years and how we can improve the 
environment and how we can improve the commodity prices for our 
producers, they will come on board with our bill and see that it 
accomplishes the goals that they have set forward. I urge my colleagues 
to defeat the Kind amendment and pass the underlying bill.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, family farmers are hard working and 
disciplined; but I want to point out that there are some other groups 
of people who provide us nourishment, and one is the family fisherman 
and fisherwoman.
  I know a guy named Rudy who used to run a boat called the Shirley 
Anne when there were abundant salmon stocks in the State of Washington. 
His family does not fish any more because the salmon are gone, 
destroyed, caput, because we have silted up the rivers and destroyed a 
great natural resource.
  What this amendment will do and why I am supporting it in part is it 
will expand the number of farmers and crops who can use this money to 
help other people who provide food, namely fishermen and fisherwomen. I 
do not think that is too much to ask.
  We are taking only 3 percent of the people who benefit from this, and 
we are spreading it around to every farmer in the country and saying if 
they want to help, they are going to have this money simply for 
conservation.
  Let me point out also, this is not a question of taking money away 
from farmers. It is only a question of what they will do in return for 
the money. All this amendment suggests is instead of asking them to 
grow corn, help us grow some fish because it is not corn that is on the 
Endangered Species Act, it is fish. We are asking farmers who want to 
help to be allowed to help in that regard.
  I want to quote the President of the United States, who has been 
doing a good job for us lately. His administration policy statement 
says, ``While

[[Page 18839]]

overall farm income is strengthened, there is no question that some of 
our Nation's producers are in serious financial straits, especially 
smaller farmers and ranchers. Rather than address these unmet needs, 
H.R. 2646 would continue to direct the greatest share of resources to 
those least in need of government assistance. Nearly half of all recent 
government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, 
usually very large producers, while more than half of all U.S. farmers 
share in only 13 percent of the payments.''
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2646 would only increase this disparity.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This amendment is not in the best interests of farmers and 
ranchers in the State of Missouri nor anywhere else in the Nation.
  This amendment diverts money out of the hands of working farmers. 
Throughout this debate, I have heard my colleagues discuss the current 
farm crisis, the low commodity prices, the struggling family farm 
operations. I know all too well just how hard it is to stay in 
production agriculture today. I am a farmer.
  I want to remind my colleagues that the legislation we are debating 
today will guide the agriculture industry for the next 10 years. I 
believe that farmers in my district would agree that the base bill is a 
very good bill. It provides the stability that producers need to stay 
in business while dramatically increasing funding for conservation 
incentive programs. This amendment that we are talking about disrupts 
the balance that that base bill tries to strike.
  This amendment diverts $15 billion from the farm safety net, hitting 
those farmers who are hurting the worst the hardest. Furthermore, this 
diversion of funds from the financial safeguard would be used to expand 
Federal control and ownership of private lands. Mr. Chairman, this 
amendment takes lands permanently out of production by devoting 
billions of dollars to land retirement. This amendment retires 
productive farmland. Taking land out of production does not ensure the 
continuation of a safe, affordable, domestic source of food and fiber 
for our country. In this time of international uncertainty, we do not 
want to tie the hands of the world's most productive farmers.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in strong support of this 
amendment. The underlying bill fails to provide adequate help to small 
farmers and once again disproportionately benefits the larger commodity 
producing farms.
  The fact of the matter is that this bill does not truly reform the 
current failures of our Nation's farm policy. I agree with the Bush 
administration's statement of administration policy on the bill which 
states, ``The Nation's farm sector has changed significantly due to new 
technologies, globalization, and environmental concerns, and this bill 
does not reflect those changes.''
  The Kind-Gilchrest-Boehlert amendment will help balance this bill's 
lopsided payment structure by making more conservation funds available 
to small family farmers. Due to the dramatic increase in commodity 
payments, only 5 percent of the USDA's funding has gone towards 
conservation programs. Rural housing programs have also been squeezed.
  Numerous Delaware farmers and growers who do not grow commodity crops 
have applied for conservation funding to improve our State's water 
quality, contain nutrient pollution, combat sprawl and assist in 
wildlife protection. Unfortunately, applicants are being turned away 
left and right because of a lack of funding for vital conservation 
programs. Delaware has an almost $10 million backlog in conservation 
assistance applications. Federal conservation programs have greatly 
assisted Delaware in its longtime efforts to conserve farmland, protect 
the environment and improve water quality.
  I believe that the bill also will not solve the long-term problem. 
Due to large agriculture subsidies abroad, particularly Europe, some 
level of American subsidies for farmers is required. Indeed, even if 
this amendment passes today, Mr. Chairman, the Nation's commodity 
farmers who benefit the most from our government subsidies will still 
receive an 11 percent increase in their annual payments.
  I want to highlight a quote from the administration's statement of 
policy which states, ``H.R. 2646 would depart from this pro-trade 
direction by significantly increasing domestic subsidies to levels that 
would undermine our negotiating position in the next round of World 
Trade Organization negotiations. This bill would likely induce other 
countries to raise barriers to our products.''
  I will not support a bill that harms our ability to open foreign 
markets to U.S. products. I encourage everyone here to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have to be honest with ourselves. The reason 
that we have a Federal agriculture policy at all is to provide a 
dependable, abundant supply of cheap food for the American people. That 
is why we do this.
  I think that if you look at this amendment and what the impact of the 
underlying policy goal of Federal ag policy, what the impact would be 
on that, you have to go to the very source. They take millions of acres 
of land out of production. Now, some people may like that. Some people 
may not. But the truth is, is that it puts us in the position of 
providing less food and fiber for the consumption of the American 
people, because you are taking millions of acres of land out of 
production.
  I heard earlier in the debate somebody said that we want to give more 
money to our family farmers, that we want more money for them. And 
somehow, in the twisted logic, they think that putting them out of 
business gets more money to them. It does not work that way. We also 
heard on the debate on dairy earlier about how much people cared about 
their small dairy farmers. What do you think your small dairy farmers 
are going to think when their grain prices double or triple or more, 
because the guys who were producing their grain now put their land in 
CRP or put their land in wetlands reserve or put their land in one of 
these biological corridor things that you guys are cooking up in this?
  The impact on the dairy farmers is going to be immense. Now, you want 
to take care of that. You put rotational grazing in there. Just on the 
back of an envelope trying to figure this out, I figure it is going to 
take 200 to 300 million acres of land in this country to do rotational 
grazing with the current dairy stock that we have; 200 to 300 million 
acres. But we are not going to have that because we are taking it out 
of production.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I am in full support of the Boehlert-Kind- 
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment. This amendment will increase funding for 
conservation programs and give farmers and ranchers the ability to 
solve water quality problems, to improve the health of the land and to 
protect wildlife. Conservation programs preserve land by encouraging 
farmers not to farm on highly erodible lands, provide assistance in 
controlling polluted water runoff and encourages preservation of 
wetlands.
  This amendment successfully addresses the concerns of 70 percent of 
all farmers who produce at least 80 percent of all agricultural 
products by increasing conservation programs accessible to all kinds of 
farming.
  This amendment does not take money away from the agriculture 
community. It will simply shift $1.9 billion a year away from commodity 
programs

[[Page 18840]]

to conservation programs, which will subsequently reach more regions of 
the country.
  This amendment also extends the wetlands reserve program. This 
program continues to be popular in my area of the country in New 
Jersey, and I am equally pleased to acknowledge the benefits that this 
amendment will provide to States along the Mississippi River as well as 
the West and in Florida. I would even like to see us go further, but I 
will ask that we fully support this amendment and urge my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. A lot has 
been made about the fact that this amendment would take land out of 
production. Unfortunately, it is a reality in my State of New Hampshire 
that farms are really not economic. I would only draw to your attention 
a farm like Sunny Crest Farm in Concord, New Hampshire, which has 
benefited from the farmland protection program and can now produce 
apples for the foreseeable future instead of houses. These programs are 
critical to the maintenance of a very sad farming situation in the 
Northeast. I hope that the Congress will adopt this important 
amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kind 
amendment and want to comment about the comments that have been made 
regarding trade distortion that would come out of this farm bill, the 
underlying farm bill, that I think has been crafted so well by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) and the Committee on Agriculture.
  One of the problems with the freedom to farm implementation has not 
been the freedom to farm concept, but the implementation of it. The 
Congress has failed until just last year to open markets to our farmers 
so they could have markets around the world that they could compete in. 
And so it is improper to say that this is somehow trade distorting, 
when in fact, farmers have been begging over the years to have access 
to markets that have been closed to them and that food has been used as 
a weapon in foreign policy.
  What we need certainly is trade promotion authority for this 
President to go negotiate our agreements with other countries to lower 
their tariff barriers so that we can have access to their markets, our 
farmers can.
  This amendment, with all due respect to the sponsors and the 
supporters, would take land out of production. And when it takes land 
out of production, we jeopardize the food safety and security of our 
country. If you do not have farmers farming, you are not going to have 
food produced domestically which we may need in years ahead just as we 
need it today.
  It also has a negative impact. As you put money and land into 
conservation programs, like CRP and wetlands reserve, you take it out 
of production. The production agriculture does not then help rural 
communities, such as the implement store or the seed guy or the food 
store in rural communities. We are seeing our rural communities in 
jeopardy around this country. So production agriculture is promoted and 
assisted in the underlying bill. That is why we must support this bill 
and reject the amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen), another distinguished member of the Committee 
on Agriculture.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
this amendment. There are three issues that are really driving my 
support for this amendment. One is the ag economy in my district is in 
as much desperation as any other district in this country. Second, one 
of the issues affecting my farmers is suburban encroachment. They need 
help to continue farming. The third is the listing on the Endangered 
Species Act of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon, which is wreaking havoc 
for my family farms.
  Having a strong conservation title is important. When I went around 
my district in April, my farmers asked for three things in a farm bill, 
a strong trade title, strong research and a strong conservation title. 
I have learned a lot from the farmers in my district. I have also 
learned a lot from two people on the committee, the chairman and the 
ranking member. I want to thank them for the hard work that they have 
put in to getting the farm bill as far as it has gone. But for my 
farmers in my district, having a strong conservation title is 
critically important, which is why I stand today in support of the Kind 
amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent an area that should be the target 
population for this amendment, a State that does not benefit from the 
traditional commodities programs, a State that has a tremendous 
agricultural base, a lot of family farms. But contrary to what the 
propaganda has been that has been put out there, this bill gives the 
perception that the money is going to States like Florida, like fruit 
and vegetable producing States that do not have the grains, but it 
takes it away with these size limitations.
  Forty percent of the dairy farms in Florida would not qualify for any 
of the benefits placed under the Kind amendment. Ninety percent of the 
poultry farms would not qualify as put out by our Commissioner of 
Agriculture in a letter to the delegation this morning.
  It is time for some of those environmental groups and sportsmen's 
groups to pull off the interstate, step out of the Range Rover, get 
your feet dirty and see what farmers need. Farmers need the ability to 
continue to produce food and fiber for this Nation. Farmers need the 
ability to stay in business, with working lands, with productive lands, 
with assistance to do what they want to do, to raise crops, to grow 
livestock, not to raise government payments, not to harvest checks from 
the mailbox, not to be a part of an environmental movement.
  If the farm organizations were going to benefit from this program, 
then how come none of them support this amendment? Do not scratch our 
ear and walk us to the kill floor. This amendment is bad for farmers. 
It is bad for agriculture. It is time that we step back and support the 
original bill that bumps up conservation support, encourages good 
stewardship of the land and reinforces private property rights and 
entrepreneurial spirit in the United States and in the agricultural 
economy.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-
Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment that will strengthen our existing 
conservation programs. The amendment embodies many of the important 
provisions that encourage all agricultural developers to participate in 
Federal conservation programs. It will help farmers and ranchers 
improve water quality, protect farmland from urban sprawl, preserve 
critical wildlife habitat, as well as provide farmers with technical 
assistance to implement such conservation measures.

                              {time}  1630

  The amendment also provides additional funding for small farmers and 
ranchers to participate in conservation programs. They have in the past 
been deterred from participating in those programs because of funding 
shortages.
  The amendment provides $1.9 billion above the current amount included 
in H.R. 2646 for conservation programs. This additional funding for 
maintaining and expanding the programs does not increase the cost of 
the farm bill. The amendment simply shifts funds from commodity 
programs to conservation programs that reach more farmers in more areas 
of the country. In addition, the amendment does not reduce the amount 
of funding commodity programs receive. These programs would

[[Page 18841]]

still receive funding above the average level of the last 10 years.
  Maryland conservation efforts will benefit from this increased 
conservation funding, as will those from other States. The funding for 
the Conservation Reserve Program, especially for grass and tree buffers 
near water bodies, would help reduce agricultural pollutants in many 
Maryland watersheds. In addition, suburban sprawl is swallowing many 
parts of Maryland. Without some farmland and protection money to pay 
farmers for the development rights, even more farmland would be lost.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge all Members to vote in favor of this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The Chair would announce that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining 
and will be first to close; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 
2 minutes remaining and will be second to close; the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert) has 2 minutes remaining and will be third to close; 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) or the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), as the case may be, has 2 minutes remaining and 
will close.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I was on a hike one day in the northern part of my 
district, crossing it with my wife, and we ran across this farmer who 
was working in his fields. He came out to greet us. He had an orange 
that he took out of his knapsack and started to peel it and stopped, 
and he held it in his hand and he said to me, ``Look at this.'' I 
looked. And he said, ``See my thumbnail around this orange?'' I said 
``Yes.'' He said, ``That is what we have left of prime agricultural 
land on the planet Earth.''
  We are losing 68 square miles of prime agricultural land in the State 
of Michigan every year. That is comparable to the size of two 
townships.
  Our current backlog request for conservation measures is $45 million. 
Approximately 88,000 square miles of Great Lakes Basin are devoted to 
agriculture; yet we lose 63 million tons of top soil from farmland 
basins each year in our State.
  We have got a huge problem with unchecked combined animal feeding 
operations in the southwest part of our State, raising serious 
environmental problems. If you do not believe that, ask the people in 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where 104 people died of cryptosporidium that was 
thought to be caused by animal waste.
  Above all, we need to remember that our farmers play a crucial role 
in preserving our environment, and we should never forget that they are 
truly the stewards of our land. This amendment does that. It takes care 
of our land.
  The amendment will provide a 63 percent increase in conservation 
dollars for Michigan farmers. It will increase funding for farmland 
protection programs so that family farmers can stay in business, 
despite threats of sprawl and over development.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it makes a long-term 
investment in the rural heritage of our country.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Kind amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the chairman and ranking 
member and my other colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture for the 
obvious hard work all of us have put in in trying to craft the next 
farm bill. This is not easy stuff.
  I want to commend my colleagues for the spirited debate we had on the 
floor today. This is what democracy is all about. It is being able to 
raise varying issues, have a discussion about them, and then ultimately 
a vote. But, again, let me just emphasize a couple of key points in 
this.
  The current commodity subsidy recipients now are going to be getting 
double the amount of subsidy payments, even under our own amendment 
under this new farm bill, so it is not like they are going to be 
experiencing a net loss or we are taking something away. We are only 
saying that perhaps a little bit of the huge increase that they are 
going to be getting could be shifted into these voluntary conservation 
programs so all farmers in all regions will be able to benefit.
  There are some who have claimed that we need to send the money to 
those who are producing the food in the country. I agree. But let us 
also remember, 70 percent of the farmers in this country are not 
receiving any commodity subsidies at all; yet those 70 percent of 
farmers are producing 80 percent of the food market value in this 
country. I think the time has come to include them into the farm bill 
and the benefits of the farm bill in a fair and more equitable fashion 
with the societal benefits that our amendment would also bring.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not by accident that this Nation has the most 
abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply, 
at the lowest cost to our people of any country in the world. It is 
because our agricultural policy has been balanced.
  This bill today is more than just commodities and conservation. It is 
also forestry, trade, research, nutrition, rural development, and 
credit.
  The Committee on Agriculture had a difficult time. We had to fit it 
within a $73.5 billion budget. Therefore, we had to make tough choices, 
and that is what we did.
  To those who support the amendment today, who I most ardently oppose, 
let me point out to our colleagues, we are spending on the same 
programs; it is just the amount of money that you are wanting to spend.
  The backlog that everybody has talked about, 561,000 acres in the 
wetlands reserve, we provide in our $1.5 billion, three times the 
backlog. In the environmental quality program that the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) spoke about a moment ago, we put $800 
million more into it than the amendment. In the wildlife habitat, 3,017 
applicants for $19 million, we put $385 million. Farmland protection, 
the backlog, $281 million, we put $500 million.
  We meet the needs of the environmental community. This is the 
greenest farm bill that has ever passed this Congress, and I support it 
enthusiastically. I oppose the amendment. The amendment will do drastic 
harm to all of the causes that those who support the amendment profess 
to believe that they will help.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan and geographically dispersed sponsors of 
my amendment and the administration looked at the base bill and drew 
the same conclusions.
  Let me read from the statement of administration policy: ``The 
administration believes it is possible to craft a policy that is better 
for rural America, better for the environment and better for expanding 
markets for our producers than H.R. 2646.'' We agree. That is why we 
have sponsored this amendment.
  The administration says: ``H.R. 2646 misses the opportunity to 
modernize the Nation's farm programs through market-oriented tools, 
innovative environmental programs, including extending benefits to 
working lands and aid programs that are consistent with our trade 
agenda.'' We agree. That is why we sponsored this amendment.
  The administration notes that the base bill fails to help farmers 
most in need, those in serious financial straits, especially smaller 
farmers and ranchers. We agree. That is why we support this amendment.
  The administration observes that nearly half of all recent government 
payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, usually very 
large producers, while more than half of all U.S. farmers share in only 
13 percent of the payments. H.R. 2646 would only increase this 
disparity. We agree. That is why we support this amendment.

[[Page 18842]]

  The farmers who do not receive commodity payments, 70 percent of all 
farmers produce 80 percent of the value of all agricultural products. 
If you want to help farmers, if you want clean water, if you want open 
space, vote for our amendment.
  Let me observe, we have heard all day that the bill already increases 
conservation funding, and it does. But it puts that increase almost 
exclusively in one program, then it changes the rules to target the 
program to the largest farmers in the fewest number of States.
  I say vote for the Boehlert-Gilchrest-Kind-Dingell amendment. Support 
America's farmers. Take care of the little guy. I urge passage of the 
amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  First of all, I would like to take note that the administration does 
not endorse this amendment. Nowhere do I see the administration 
endorsing the Kind amendment. Furthermore, when the question comes to 
the big picture of agriculture, perhaps some of the bureaucrats within 
the administration do not fully appreciate everything that we see going 
on. So they may be wrong in their general statement about it.
  But let us remember this: we have passed comprehensive farm bills 
since 1933, and the goal of every farm bill is ultimately to provide a 
safe supply of food and fiber to dress and feed this great Nation. And 
we have succeeded so well; we have never known a famine in this country 
in the history of Federal farm policy. That is nothing short of 
incredible.
  Now, the question about backlogs and the needs out there for 
conservation, we had hearings at full committee, we had hearings at 
subcommittee. We listened to 23 groups. We listened to everybody who 
had an interest in this issue, and we addressed every one of their 
needs.
  In the first year of funding in this bill, whether it is EQIP or 
farmland or every other provision of conservation, we address the 
needs. We wipe out the backlog, and we go farther. We go farther; $37 
billion to be spent on conservation over the next 10 years. It is 
amazing.
  If you had said 10 years ago we could do that, people would have 
thought you were crazed. If you said 30 years ago we could do that, 
they would have even been even more amazed.
  We have risen to the occasion on the committee, we have addressed all 
of the needs out there, and we have done it within the resource 
allocation given to us by the Committee on the Budget.
  Yes, we still take care of production agriculture. You will still be 
able to eat; you will still be able to dress in this country, thanks to 
the American farmer and rancher. We owe them this.
  And, oh, yes, do not forget those conservation programs are cost-
share, so when that farmer and rancher is doing things to preserve the 
soil and water, the wildlife, he is putting down a big chunk of his or 
her own money. There is nothing free about this.
  American farmers and ranchers are the ultimate stewards of the soil, 
of water, of the wildlife, of the environment, the ultimate stewards; 
and in this bill we help them become even better stewards, using their 
resources and some Federal resources together.
  Mr. Chairman, let us defeat this amendment, let us pass this bill, 
let us get on with the agenda of the future of production of 
agriculture and the environment in this country, and start our hearings 
on the next bill.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague from New York, Mr. Boehlert.
  I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from New 
York, Mr. Boehlert.
  This proposal significantly increases the investment in an array of 
important programs which are critical to conservation efforts in my 
state of New York and in other states across the country: the EQIP 
program, the Farmland Protection Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, 
the Conservation Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
Program.
  This amendment will help us reach more farmers in more parts of the 
country. And will assist these farmers in their efforts to protect and 
restore the health of their land and the livability of their 
communities.
  So I thank my colleagues--Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Kind, Mr. Gilchrest, and 
Mr. Dingell--for their work on this proposal, and offer my strong 
support for this amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support to the Boehlert-Kind-
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment. It puts added emphasis on conservation 
programs, and offers more resources based on conservation to all 
farmers, rather than a limited group.
  There is nothing more precious than our land. Without it, we cannot 
sustain life. Without appropriate measures of assistance, too many 
producers of row crops, as well as fruits, vegetables and livestock--
all find themselves without the ability to undertake the full degree of 
conservation practices necessary.
  At the same time, one of the most significant issues facing our 
communities is urban sprawl. Across the Nation more than 90 million 
acres of farmland are threatened by sprawl, and we lose more than 2 
million acres every year to development. Unplanned and inefficient 
development is consuming land at twice the rate of population growth. 
The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment provides funding for 
conservation programs that can help alleviate the consumption of 
valuable, productive agricultural lands. While putting greater emphasis 
on conservation.
  Why should funding be increased for conservation programs that 
protect farmland from development?
  Sprawl cost taxpayers more dollars for new infrastructure. Farmland 
or open space generates only 38 cents in costs for each dollar in taxes 
paid, whereas residential development requires $1.24 in public 
expenditures for every dollar it generates in tax revenues.
  Farms located near urban centers serve as the primary source of 
fresh, locally grown food. Seventy-nine percent of our fruit, sixty-
nine percent of our vegetables, and fifty-two percent of our dairy 
goods are produced on high quality farmland that is threatened by urban 
growth. One-third of America's agricultural production occurs on farms 
near cities. America cannot afford to squander this resource.
  Cities and towns can save billions of dollars in municipal water 
treatment costs. Protecting wetlands and streams prevents costs of 
water treatment systems downstream.
  We know that there is great concern on the part of the Agriculture 
Committee about the offsets provided by this amendment. The sponsors of 
the amendment have attempted to target these reductions in a fashion to 
minimize the impact on over 90 percent of all producers receiving 
payments.
  But keep certain facts in mind. First, even though the last Farm Bill 
was for seven years, it did not go untouched during its life. If anyone 
of us here today truly believes that this is the last time we will 
visit the farm bill until 2011, you have far greater faith than I. 
There always remains room for improvement.
  Second, the emergency programs that we have seen in recent years did 
not treat producers fairly. Many growers in my district told me how 
unfair they thought they were, and this included some of the growers 
receiving the benefits. Even though the bill before us today suggest 
that it will avoid the problems of emergency bills, it still fails to 
correct many of the imbalances that exist in the current program, and 
it fails to provide a broad range safety net for other producers. Where 
is the Freedom to Farm in protection for some commodities but not for 
others?
  We are at a stage where we need a broad recasting of our farm policy. 
We need programs that promote conservation. We need to provide support 
for alternative products like biofuels. We need new thinking, higher 
value added not old hat solutions.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell 
amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-Kind-
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment.
  This amendment to the farm bill will help farmers help the 
environment by providing funding for vitally important conservation 
efforts. These include: the Conservation Reserve Programs; restoration 
of 250,000 acres of wetlands; increased funding for Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program; and the creation of a 3-million-acre grassland 
reserve.
  According to the Kansas City Star and in a recent poll, 75 percent of 
Americans want conservation to be included in any farm package 
established by the U.S. Government.
  The farm bill, in its current form, excludes equitable relief for 60 
percent of farmers. These farmers currently do not receive any benefits 
from the traditional commodity support programs. This amendment 
redistributes money more widely and equitable to producers and also 
improves the environment.
  This bill would also save billions of dollars in municipal water 
treatment costs and would reduce erosion and sediment in the water by

[[Page 18843]]

providing natural buffers along rivers and streams.
  In the past, the U.S. Department of Agriculture opposed small 
farmers', ranchers', and forest landowners' requests for assistance in 
order to restore lost habitat. Also, according to the Bush 
administration, payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, 
while more than half of all U.S. farmers share only 13 percent of the 
payments.
  As we establish a legislative framework to assist with land 
cultivation, we must also invest in sound environmental policies and 
practices.
  The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is supported by 
numerous organizations including: the League of Conservation Voters, 
the Water Environment Federation, the National Association of Water 
Companies, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Ducks Unlimited, Trout 
Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League, and Defenders of the Wildlife.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' for the Boehlert-
Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank the gentlemen from Texas, Chairman Combest and Charlie Stenholm, 
not only their hard work in crafting this farm bill, but also for the 
way in which they worked with members from all areas of the country to 
make sure we had the best bill that could have been drafted under the 
tough circumstances we faced.
  This bill will go a long way to help many of the producers that I 
represent in southeastern North Carolina, and believe me: the timing 
could not have come sooner. The agriculture sector is struggling in 
America, and farmers need our help. This bill provides an additional 
$73.5 billion for agriculture and our rural communities during a time 
they need it most.
  However, I would like to mention one area that could have used 
additional funding. For the past 6 years, peanut producers have been 
operating under a price support system that guaranteed $610 per ton of 
peanuts. During this time, the farmers' input costs, such as fuel and 
fertilizer, have also steadily increased, squeezing already thin profit 
margins. This bill changes the current program, and I fear North 
Carolina peanut producers will earn even less, only exacerbating farm 
sales in my area. Therefore, as this bill moves forward, I hope 
additional funds will be found for peanut producers.
  Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill overall; I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this bipartisan 
amendment because it will help farmers and ranchers to be even better 
stewards of their lands.
  Farmers provide the backbone of America by putting food on our 
tables. But agriculture is a hard business.
  Food prices fluctuate for a number of reasons, which in turn can 
affect the demand and price for certain crops. Poor crop prices hit 
farmers were it hurts the most--the pocketbook. When a farmer is having 
trouble taking care of his or her own family, taking care of the land 
can become a less important priority.
  But we can change that with this amendment, which will put a new and 
greater emphasis on successful conservation programs.
  The Wetland Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 
Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, and the Conservation Reserve 
Program are just a few of the programs that are the focus of the 
amendment.
  These programs give incentives to farmers to restore wetlands, 
improve natural habitats for endangered species and hold the line 
against urban sprawl by preserving open space.
  Farmers and ranchers want to participate in these programs. 
Unfortunately, many cannot. These programs have not had the resources 
to allow everyone who qualifies to take part. This amendment will go 
far to remedy that situation.
  This farm bill will leave a lasting mark and provide the direction 
for American farm policy for the next 10 years. So, it is important 
that we make it as good as we can. Passing this amendment will be a 
big, important step in that direction.
  I urge adoption of the amendment. If we do we will strengthen our 
family farms while making conservation an even bigger part of the 
foundation of our farm policy.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like attach an editorial 
that was printed in the Denver Post that helps illustrate why we need 
to pass this important amendment.

                      Aid Farmers and Environment

       Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal tried to 
     stabilize farm prices during the Great Depression, laws 
     passed by Congress have waged a losing fight against the laws 
     of economics.
       This year, four U.S. representatives--Sherwood Boehlert, R-
     N.Y.; Ron Kind, D-Wis.; Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md.; and John 
     Dingell, D-Mich.--are trying to introduce a note of realism 
     into U.S. farm policy by amending key parts of their Working 
     Lands Stewardship Act, HR 2375, into the latest farm bill.
       To understand why the new approach is promising requires a 
     quick look at why the old one failed. Low farm prices are 
     caused by an oversupply of farm commodities. Seven decades of 
     subsidies haven't cured that problem because--by definition--
     subsidies encourage more production of the very commodities 
     that are already in oversupply.
       To be sure, for more than 60 years, the U.S. imposed half-
     hearted restrictions on production of subsidized crops. But a 
     farmer who planted 100 acres of wheat and later received a 
     90-acre allotment invariably tore up his or her least 
     productive land. Then, that supposedly ``idled'' land would 
     be sown with millet, barley or some other unsubsidized crop--
     as allowed by the subsidy law--and thus go on contributing to 
     the overall surplus of feed grains.
       The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act separated subsidies from 
     production and supposedly intended to phase out subsidies 
     entirely in seven years. But the Asian currency collapse 
     ruined U.S. export markets, farm prices plunged and Congress 
     hurriedly renewed the counterproductive policy of subsidizing 
     overproduction.
       The Boehlert amendment is designed to help farmers and the 
     environment alike by diverting $5.4 billion per year from 
     subsidies to conservation. Instead of merely diverting 
     acreage from one crop to another as the discredited allotment 
     system did, the Boehlert amendment pays farmers to put more 
     land into conservation programs, including:
       The Environmental Quality Incentives program, which helps 
     farmers and ranchers preserve watersheds.
       The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, which helps 
     landowners enhance wildlife habitat.
       The Wetlands Reserve Program, which protects, preserves and 
     restores wetlands on marginal soils.
       The Grassland Reserve Program, which authorizes 
     preservation of 3 million acres of fragile grasslands that 
     should not be plowed.
       The Conservation Reserve Program, a long-term cropland 
     retirement program that enables producers to convert highly 
     erodible or environmentally sensitive cropland to cover 
     crops.
       The environmental benefits of such programs are obvious. 
     The benefit for the farmers who receive such payments is 
     equally clear. But even farmers who don't participate in such 
     programs also benefit indirectly--because taking 
     environmentally fragile farmland out of production also 
     reduces the surpluses that keep farm commodity prices at 
     ruinous levels.
       For nearly seven decades, Congress fought the law of supply 
     and demand--and the law of supply and demand won. It's high 
     time to stop subsidizing the very overproduction that causes 
     the need for subsidies in the first place.
       We urge all members of Colorado's congressional delegation 
     to support the Boehlert amendment.

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of the Working Lands 
Stewardship Act, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-Kind-
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment to H.R. 2646.
  Like the Working Lands Stewardship Act, this amendment will 
substantially increase resources for farm conservation. American 
farmers are the most productive in the world and are responsible for 
the largest export sector in our economy. Yet our farmers are also 
sensitive to the environment on which they depend for their 
livelihoods. The competition for federal farm conservation programs 
proves this fact. Three of every four applications for conservation 
programs are turned down because of a lack of funding.
  Clearly, American farmers want to be good stewards of the environment 
and want greater funding for conservation programs. This amendment 
provides these resources.
  The amendment will also provide more equity to farmers who do not 
grow traditional commodity products, such as corn, soybeans, and wheat. 
In my district, farmers grow specialty crops, such as brussels sprouts, 
which are eligible for commodity assistance. Through this amendment, 
more of these farmers will be eligible for federal assistance under 
conservation programs.
  This investment will not only benefit our farmers, it will benefit 
our environment, protect wildlife habitats and wetlands, and promote 
organic and environmentally friendly farming techniques.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell 
amendment.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-
Kind-Gilchrest conservation amendment to H.R. 2646, the farm bill of 
2001.
  Based on the Working Lands Stewardship Act, this important amendment 
would go a long way to protect and preserve the environment through 
existing, voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs.
  Mr. Chairman, our farm policy should reward farmers and ranchers when 
they meet

[[Page 18844]]

our Nation's environmental challenges. As we all know, two of three 
farmers currently seeking USDA conservation assistance are denied due 
to lack of funding. Unless we increase conservation funding, one-third 
of our rivers and lakes will remain polluted, millions of acres of open 
space will be lost and scores of species will become extinct.
  This critical conservation amendment will improve water quality, 
protect against flooding and provide a safe haven for wildlife. That's 
why it's so important to not only rural America, but suburban and urban 
America as well. After all, preserving and protecting the environment 
is an obligation all Americans share.
  The committee's bill is totally inadequate as a conservation measure 
because it fails to tie government farm payments to conservation 
practices, and the funding for conservation programs is clearly 
insufficient.
  The amendment before us is absolutely essential to increase access to 
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetlands Reserve Program 
(WRP), the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP), and the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program (WHIP).
  Let's pass the Boehlert-Kind amendment. Let's do the right thing for 
America's future and increase conservation of our precious natural 
resources.
  Make no mistake about it. This vote is one of the most important 
environmental protection votes of the decade. I urge a ``yes'' vote for 
this critical conservation amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of an urban district, 
I am proud to express my strong support for the Boehlert-Kind-
Gilchrest-Dingell amendment.
  My citizens in Parma, OH, a suburb of Cleveland, have been struggling 
for over a year to save wetlands in their city from development. A 
century of sprawl has left only 153 acres of wetlands there. These 
wetlands are part of a watershed of the Cuyahoga River, an American 
Heritage river that feeds into Lake Erie, and these wetlands are 
critical to ecological health. The citizens in my district, in their 
effort to set wetlands aside and restore them, need a federal solution.
  The programs in the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment are 
needed now more than ever to help. These programs are critical in order 
to preserve urban greenspace and dedicate resources to wetland 
preservation before development takes over all greenspace and wetlands.
  The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment would help protect the 
more than 90 million of acres of farmland that are currently threatened 
by sprawl by increasing funding to $100 million for FY2002 and 
increasing this amount through 2011. It would protect urban greenspace 
by boosting mandatory funding to $50 annually through 2011.
  These programs are crucial to cities across America. My citizens are 
struggling with the problems of sprawl and lack of wetlands protection 
now. Small, individual communities and farmers don't have the planning 
strategy and resources to effectively prevent these problems. There is 
a need for the programs and funding in this amendment, and this need 
existed years ago. This amendment is overdue.
  We should approve this amendment so other communities don't have to 
put up the same fight to save greenspace in their cities, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Boehlert-
Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment to H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 
2001. This amendment would expand Federal conservation efforts and more 
equitably distribute federal funds from USDA income support programs.
  The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment would expand several 
conservation programs that are incredibly beneficial to farmers in my 
home State of New York, as well as farmers across the country. 
According to USDA, New York State received only 0.53 percent of the 
total conservation funding. We can do much better.
  In fact, 34 States fare better under this amendment than under H.R. 
2646. By shifting just 15 percent of the $12 billion spent annually on 
commodities from these programs to conservation, more farmers in more 
States will get assistance. Programs such as the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, Farmland Protection Program, Wetlands Reserve 
Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
Program are all improved to address the needs of smaller and 
disadvantaged farmers more adequately.
  In addition, New York farmers receive only about 0.65 percent of the 
total Federal crop funding. This amendment would ensure that 
noncommodity crop producers are eligible for a larger share of Federal 
farm spending, which is currently concentrated in select States.
  In fact, farmers in New York, as well as those in California, 
Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania receive only 3 cents in 
Federal funds for every dollar they earn, compared with the 20 cents 
per dollar received by farmers in the Great Plains States.
  However, this measure does not destroy the safety net for commodity 
producers. Under the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment, 
producers--even the top 10 percent of producers--still get higher 
payments than the average of the past 10 years, and many times more 
than they were slated to receive under the last farm bill.
  In fact, the Bush administration agrees that H.R. 2646 directs 
Federal payments to those with the least need, saying yesterday that 
``there is no question that some of our Nation's producers are in 
serious financial straits, especially smaller farmers and ranchers. 
Rather than address these unmet needs, H.R. 2646 would continue to 
direct the greatest share of resources to those least in need of 
government assistance.''
  Many prominent State agencies, agricultural and conservation groups 
have endorsed the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment to H.R. 
2646, including the New York State Department of Agriculture, the 
Audubon Society, and the Wildlife Management Institute. This amendment 
is a step forward in our efforts to ensure the future of American 
agriculture and preserve our environment simultaneously. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 226, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 366]

                               AYES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--226

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr

[[Page 18845]]


     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Burton
     Collins
     Gibbons
     Houghton
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1706

  Messrs. ROGERS of Michigan, RILEY, THOMAS, HUNTER, and RUSH, and Mrs. 
MEEK of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The pending 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


 Vacating Request for Recorded Vote on Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. 
                               Blumenauer

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, since my request for a recorded vote on 
my amendment that would have banned interstate transfer of game birds 
for cockfighting purposes, I have had conversations with the Chair and 
ranking member of the Committee.
  I would like to express my appreciation for their commitment to work 
to keep these provisions in the bill, I would like to acknowledge it, 
and accordingly, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a 
recorded vote and ask that that be vacated, and that the question on 
agreeing to the amendment be put to the Chamber de novo.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the demand for a 
recorded vote is vacated.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       In title V, strike section 517 and redesignate succeeding 
     sections (and amend the table of contents) accordingly.
       At the end of title IX, insert the following;

     SEC. 9____. TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MINORITY AND 
                   DISADVANTAGED FARMERS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure 
     compilation and public disclosure of data critical to 
     assessing and holding the Department of Agriculture 
     accountable for the equitable participation of minority, 
     limited resource, and women farmers and ranchers in programs 
     of the Department.
       (b) Use of Target Participation Rates in All Department of 
     Agriculture Programs for Farmers and Ranchers.--
       (1) Establishment.--For each county and State in the United 
     States, the Secretary of Agriculture shall establish an 
     annual target participation rate equal to the number of 
     socially disadvantaged residents in the political subdivision 
     in proportion to the total number of residents in the 
     political subdivision. In this section, the term ``socially 
     disadvantaged resident'' means a resident who is a member of 
     a socially disadvantaged group (as defined in section 
     355(e)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act).
       (2) Comparison with actual participation rates.--The 
     Secretary shall compute annually the actual participation 
     rates of socially disadvantaged and women farmers and 
     ranchers as a percentage of the total participation of all 
     farmers and ranchers, for each program of the Department of 
     Agriculture in which a farmer or rancher may participate. In 
     determining these rates, the Secretary shall consider the 
     number of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers of each 
     race or ethnicity, and the number of women participants in 
     each county and State in proportion to the total number of 
     participants in each program.
       (c) Compilation of Election Participation Data, and Public 
     Disclosure Requirements for County Committee Elections.--
     Effective 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     section, section 8(a)(5)(B) of the Soil Conservation and 
     Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 509h(a)(5)(B)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v)(I) The committee shall publicly announce at least 10 
     days in advance the date, time, and place where ballots will 
     be opened and counted. No ballots may be opened until such 
     time, and anyone may observe the opening and counting of 
     ballots.
       ``(II) Within 20 days after the elections, the committee 
     shall compile and report to the State and national offices 
     the number of eligible voters in the county and in each open 
     local administrative area or at large district, the number of 
     ballots counted, the number and percentage of ballots 
     disqualified, and the proportion of eligible voters compared 
     to votes cast. The committee shall further compile, in each 
     category above, the results aggregated by race, ethnicity, 
     and gender, as compared to total eligible voters and total 
     votes. The committee shall also report as provided above, the 
     number of nominees for each open seat and the election 
     results, aggregated by race, ethnicity and gender, as well as 
     the new composition of the county or area committee.
       ``(III) The Secretary shall, within 90 days after the 
     election, compile a report which aggregates all data 
     collected under subclause (II) and presents results at the 
     national, regional, State, and local levels.
       ``(IV) The Secretary shall analyze the data compiled in 
     subclauses (II) and (III) and within 1 year after the 
     completion of the report referred to in subclause (III), 
     shall prescribe (and open to public comment) uniform 
     guidelines for conducting elections for members and 
     alternates of county committees, including procedures to 
     allow appointment as voting members of groups, or methods to 
     assure fair representation of groups who would be 
     demographically underrepresented in that county.''.
       (d) Requirements for Electronic, Web, and Printed 
     Disclosure of Data.--The Secretary shall compile the actual 
     number of farmers and ranchers, classified by race or 
     ethnicity and gender, for each county and State with national 
     totals. The Secretary shall, for the current and each of the 
     4 preceding years, make available to the public on websites 
     that the Department of Agriculture regularly maintains, and 
     in electronic and paper form, the above information, as well 
     as all data required under subsection (b) of this section and 
     section 8(a)(5)(B)(v) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act, at the county, State, and national levels in a 
     manner that allows comparisons among target and actual 
     program and election participation rates, among and between 
     agricultural programs, among and between demographically 
     similar counties, and over time at the county, State and 
     national levels.
       (e) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall maintain and 
     make readily available to the public all data required under 
     subsections (b) and (d) of this section and section 
     8(a)(5)(B)(v) of the Soil Conservation

[[Page 18846]]

     and Domestic Allotment Act collected annually since the most 
     recent Census of Agriculture. After each Census of 
     Agriculture, the Secretary shall report to Congress and the 
     public the rate of loss or gain in participation by each 
     group, by race, ethnicity, and gender, since the previous 
     Census of Agriculture.
       (f) Accountability.--The Secretary may also use the above 
     data, including comparisons with demographically similar 
     counties and with national averages, to monitor and evaluate 
     election and program participation rates and agricultural 
     programs, and civil rights compliance, and in county 
     committee employee and Department of Agriculture employee 
     performance reviews, and in developing outreach and other 
     strategies and recommendations to assure agriculture programs 
     and services meet the needs of socially disadvantaged and 
     women producers.
       (g) Conforming Amendment.--Section 355(c)(1) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2005(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Establishment.--In paragraph (2), the term `target 
     participation rate' means, with respect to a State, the 
     target participation rate established for purposes of 
     subtitle B of this title pursuant to section 9__(c)(1) of the 
     Farm Security Act of 2001.''.


        Modification to Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to replace the 
amendment with a conforming amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       In title V, strike section 517(a).
       Conform the section heading (and table of contents) 
     accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
just like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan.
  This particular amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
deals with a provision that I asked to be inserted in the bill and was 
inserted during the course of the markup in the Committee on 
Agriculture, and it did pass and is in the mark.
  The particular provision deals with direct operating loans made by 
the Farm Service Agency to farmers versus guaranteed operating loans 
that are made by the Farm Service Agency that are guaranteed by banks.
  The problem that I seek to address with this particular provision is 
that the default rate on loans, direct loans made by the Federal 
Government, is somewhere historically in the 10 to 12 to 14 percent 
range, whereas the default rate on guaranteed loans has historically 
been more in the range of 1 to 2 to 3 percent.
  Now, that is a lot of money that the Federal Government is losing 
because of the direct operating loans made by the bank. What we simply 
sought to do was to basically get the government out of the farm 
lending business and let the financial institutions make those loans.
  The gentleman, I understand, has agreed to modify his amendment, 
which I am willing to accept, because what we asked for in addition to 
the sunset was a study to be done by GAO on the guaranteed as well as 
the non-guaranteed loans. I am perfectly willing to do that, and we 
agreed to modify the sunset provision.
  But I wanted to explain exactly why we did ask for this provision. It 
is not directed to any particular group of farmers around the country 
or types of farmers around the country, but if we are losing money on 
these loans and the banks are not, we need to know what we are doing 
wrong.
  With that, I will refer back to the gentleman, on his amendment.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman for his 
statement and for his understanding that we have a serious problem here 
with the minority farmers in America, the black farmers in particular.
  We have got a problem here with the participation rates, with the 
Farm Service Agency, county committee elections and a number of other 
very genuine concerns. What I thought might be appropriate and part of 
our agreement, Mr. Chairman, is that we proceed at some expedient time 
to have hearings in the committee on these aggregate issues that are 
before us. Is that part of the Chairman's understanding?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, that is a fair request and we are 
absolutely willing to work with the gentleman on doing that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to hear that. As the 
gentleman knows, there are a number of organizations that are working 
with us on this because we have these elections procedures that also 
are part of the review that we would like the Committee on Agriculture 
to make.
  So with those understandings I would be happy to yield to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina if she wanted to add something, or she 
can secure time on her own.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his leadership in 
this issue.
  There were two issues that this amendment addressed. One was the 
direct loan being sunset, denying disadvantaged and small farmers and 
ranchers the opportunity to go directly to the Department of 
Agriculture and borrow money other than through the guarantee loans. 
Many of us felt that to deny that opportunity would deny small farmers 
and ranchers an opportunity that more secure persons had. So we felt 
very strongly and I thank the gentleman for raising that.
  I understand that what the gentleman has done is to say that he is 
willing to strike that altogether and just have the study.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. We have worked with the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) earlier to strike that sunset 
provision. We will proceed ahead with the studies that we had in there 
as another part of it. We will have hearings on it after the studies 
are done and we will see what is the best route to take.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the other part of the Conyers amendment 
spoke to the civil rights issues both in the equity and distribution of 
Farm Services that are administered through Farm Services, whether they 
are loans, technical assistance or environmental programs. The array of 
programs we give all farmers. We wanted public record of that so that 
we knew that that would be going to all farmers equitably, without 
regard to race, without regard to gender or size.
  The second part of that was a fair distribution of the election of 
the committee. My understanding on that was that we would have hearings 
to vet that and come to see how we could get a more fair representation 
on the committee and have some public disclosure on how public funds 
were being spent in various counties. Am I correct in my understanding?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the 
gentlewoman has stated it perfectly.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to share with the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) my total cooperation with the spirit of this unanimous consent 
request. The study will go forward, but there will be hearings to 
address all of the questions that are raised with this. I will be more 
than happy to work with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think the requests are fair and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification?

[[Page 18847]]

  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The modification is agreed to.
  Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) seek time on his 
amendment?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, for more than 60 years, 
the Federal government has fostered rural development through farm 
credit and other programs that are vital to small farms. Small, 
minority, women and beginning farmers have often had no other access to 
credit than USDA and Farmers Home Administration.
  The Conyers amendment preserves this traditional role as the ``lender 
of last resort'', maintaining open entry for a new generation of 
farmers by restoring the direct lending role that would otherwise end 
in five years.
  The programs and services of the Federal government should be freely 
accessible and open to all who are eligible to receive them. Local 
participation has been one of the high-points of USDA programs for 
years. To make this goal a reality, Mr. Conyers has worked with the 
Majority to reinstate the direct lending provisions of H.R. 2646.
  However, some farmers have been excluded who do not meet some local 
idea of eligible farmers. Minority farm loss in previous decades has 
skyrocketed at a rate more than three times that of other farmers. 
Between 1987 and 1997, an additional 20% of African-American farms were 
lost.
  The lack of clear data on how many minority and women producers are 
on the land and participating in USDA programs is a critical barrier to 
any efforts to seek fairness.
  To address this problem, it is my understanding that the majority has 
agreed to hold full committee hearings on the subject of equitable 
participation in the FSA county committee system. As a member of the 
Agriculture Committee, I expect that we will be able to recommend that 
target participation rates be computed for each county and state based 
on the total number of socially-disadvantaged residents in a county in 
proportion to the number of residents as a whole. This data would then 
be posted for each USDA program by county, state, and nationally on all 
USDA websites.
  We want to ensure equitable participation by all farmers in county 
committee elections and to provide public information and oversight of 
elections. To accomplish these goals, the responsible course of action 
is to require the opening of all ballots be open to the public. 
Election results would be posted to the Internet and the Secretary 
would have authority to intervene when adequate representation is not 
achieved.
  Mr. Chairman, the success of our smallest farmers depends largely the 
willingness of the Federal government to ensure a fair process. I 
submit that the Conyers amendment seeks to level a playing field that 
has operated to their disadvantage for some time. I urge my colleagues 
to support the Conyers amendment and vote for its passage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of title IX (page __, after line __), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT AND SENSE OF 
                   CONGRESS REGARDING PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE 
                   EQUIPMENT, PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES USING FUNDS 
                   PROVIDED UNDER THIS ACT.

       (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds made 
     available under this Act, whether directly using funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation or pursuant to an authorization 
     of appropriations contained in this Act, may be provided to a 
     producer or other person or entity unless the producer, 
     person, or entity agrees to comply with the Buy American Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c) in the expenditure of the funds.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--In the case of any equipment, 
     products, or services that may be authorized to be purchased 
     using funds provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
     Congress that producers and other recipients of such funds 
     should, in expending the funds, purchase only American-made 
     equipment, products, and services.
       (c) Notice to Recipients of Funds.--In providing payments 
     or other assistance under this Act, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall provide to each recipient of the funds a 
     notice describing the requirements of subsection (a) and the 
     statement made in subsection (b) by Congress.


        Modification to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be modified with the language at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 361, add after line 3 the following:

                            TITLE X--REPORTS

     SEC. 1001. ANNUAL REPORT ON IMPORTS OF BEEF AND PORK.

       The Secretary shall submit to the Congress an annual report 
     on the amount of beef and pork that is imported into the 
     United States each calendar year.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request to the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this modification strictly says that 
shall be a study as to the impact of beef and pork being imported to 
America and it shall report back to the respective committees on these 
imports which affect our cattle and pork producers which have suffered 
some grave problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. We 
have had a discussion on this amendment and it is acceptable to us. I 
appreciate the gentleman's help.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. We have seen news reels of farmers literally shooting 
their livestock. We have seen live hogs selling for 17 cents a pound. 
This basically is a study that will inform the leadership of our 
Congress as to the impact of foreign beef and pork into America, hogs 
and cattle.
  Mr. Chairman, with that I ask that the amendment be accepted. I 
believe it makes sense that we should do this and have the exact 
quantification of the numbers and its impact on many small farmers who 
use land that is not necessarily able to produce good cash crops but 
can raise, in fact, good nutritious meat and other by-products.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the committee, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure about what the earlier 
statement that I did make that was not clear, but as I indicated, we 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, we also accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment, as modified, offered by gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Miller of Florida

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 41.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Miller of Florida:
       Strike sections 151, 152, and 153 (page 75, line 19, 
     through page 102, line 20) and insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 151. SUGAR PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension of Program at Reduced Loan Rates.--Section 
     156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
     1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``sugar.'' and inserting 
     ``sugar through the 2001 crop of sugercane and 17 cents per 
     pound for raw cane sugar for the 2002 through 2011 crops of 
     sugarcane.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``sugar.'' and inserting 
     ``sugar through the 2001 crop of sugar beets and 21.6 cents 
     per pound for refined beet sugar for the 2002 through 2011 
     crops of sugar beets.''; and
       (3) in subsection (i), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2011''.

[[Page 18848]]

       (b) Expiration of Marketing Assessment.--Effective October 
     1, 2003, subsection (f) of section 156 of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7251) is repealed.
       (c) Increase in Forfeiture Penalty.--Subsection (g)(2) of 
     section 156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7251) is amended by striking ``1 cent'' 
     and inserting ``2 cents''.
       (d) Availability of Savings for Conservation and 
     Environmental Stewardship Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall use funds appropriated 
     pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in paragraph 
     (3) to augment conservation and environmental stewardship 
     programs established or amended in title II of this Act or 
     for other conservation and environmental programs 
     administered by the Department of Agriculture.
       (2) Priority.--In using the funds appropriated pursuant to 
     the authorization of appropriations in paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary shall give priority to conservation and 
     environmental programs administered by the Department of 
     Agriculture that conserve, restore, or enhance the Florida 
     Everglades ecosystem.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary $30,000,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 2002 through 2011. Amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to this authorization of appropriations shall be 
     available until expended and are in addition to, and not in 
     place of, other funds made available under this Act or any 
     other Act for the programs referred to in paragraph (1).

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I yield to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I want to congratulate my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) on a 
worthwhile amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because reforming 
the sugar program will help clean up the Everglades. It will allow our 
constituents to keep their hard earned tax dollars instead of handing 
them over to sugar growers.
  We are asking taxpayers to spend $8 billion to clean up the 
Everglades. At the same time--the sugar industry, which continues to 
pollute this national treasure, is being subsidized by those same 
taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be asked to support this program.
  With my statement, I am submitting an editorial from the Orlando 
Sentinel illustrating the substantial damage the sugar program has done 
to the environment. Reforming the sugar program will help clean up the 
Everglades at a faster pace.
  The current sugar program costs consumers over $1.9 billion per year 
according to the General Accounting Office (GAO). The program, which 
sugar growers claim operates at no net cost actually cost taxpayers 
$435 million last year when the growers forfeited roughly one million 
pounds of sugar. To compound that injury, all our constituents are 
helping to pay $1.4 million per month to store sugar the government 
can't get rid of.
  If that isn't enough, the Orlando Sentinel article states that, Big 
Sugar is back asking for more government bailouts. Last summer sugar 
growers were bailed out again when $54 million worth of sugar was 
purchased by the Department of Agriculture. They emphasized that this 
wouldn't happen again, yet this year they had another payment in Kind 
program (PIK) where they told beet farmers, plow up $20,000 worth of 
sugar and we will give you $20,000 worth of sugar sitting in our 
warehouses. What a waste of money. We ask you to stand up to the 
attempts of the sugar growers to line their own pockets with your 
constituent's tax dollars.
  The Miller-Miller Amendment:
  Reforms but does not eliminate the program.
  It is consistent with the Administration's principles that we should 
not rely on production controls and we should get away from government 
run price supports.
  Makes the program more market-oriented by reduced support levels.
  Protects the environment through reduced production.
  Provides for savings to protect surplus.
  Provides for increased funding for protecting the environment, 
particularly the Everglades.
  The Miller-Miller amendment is an attempt to bring some sanity to 
this sugar program. It is supported by taxpayer, consumer, 
environmental and business groups from across the spectrum. It deserves 
your support.

               [From the Orlando Sentinel, Oct. 1, 2001]

                            Derail Sugar Aid

       Our position: The sugar industry's attempt to protect 
     itself is downright obscene.
       The nation's financial needs in the wake of the horrific 
     terrorist attack of Sept. 11 are staggering. The airline 
     industry is on the verge of collapse. The markets are weak 
     and volatile. America is struggling, emotionally and 
     financially.
       The sugar industry, though, seemingly couldn't care less.
       While the nation mourns, sugar farmers have been scurrying 
     around Washington in a fervent bid to protect their own 
     interests. And they just might prevail. The U.S. House of 
     Representatives is expected to take up a hastily conceived 
     farm-aid bill this week. The package includes a provision 
     that would, with a few minor tweaks, continue to cost 
     American consumers nearly $2 billion a year in added food 
     costs, accordingly to a recent government analysis.
       In a time of plenty, those demands could be considered 
     arrogant. But in this time of uncertainty, they are downright 
     obscene.
       For more than six decades, government leaders have coddled 
     the sugar industry, a relationship nurtured by the millions 
     of dollars sugar producers pump into federal campaign 
     coffers. The industry has relied on Americans to provide them 
     with government-inflated price guarantees, foreign-import 
     restrictions and low-interest federal loans. Last year, sugar 
     farmers defaulted on about $460 million worth of those loans.
       Not surprisingly, though, industry executives blame 
     everyone but themselves for their failures. The can't compete 
     with foreign sugar producers because of foreign price 
     supports. They're not allowed to sell their products 
     overseas. Government forced the industry to default on the 
     loans last year.
       Woe are the sugar barons.
       If trade agreements prohibit sugar from effective free-
     market competition, that shouldn't be remedied by a 
     convoluted, decades-old bailout program. It should be 
     addressed at the negotiating table.
       Why, too should taxpayers continue to prop up the industry 
     when, at the same time, they're supporting an $8 billion 
     Everglades restoration effort? Sugar-cane production in 
     Florida, concentrated south of Lake Okeechobee, has exploded 
     from 50,000 acres in 1960 to approximately 500,000 acres 
     today, thanks in part to government support of the sugar 
     industry. Does anyone realize that polluted runoff from those 
     farm expansion helped make the restoration necessary in the 
     first place?
       There are intriguing alternatives. Rep. Dan Miller, from 
     Bradenton, has proposed an amendment that would wean sugar 
     from the taxpayer teat, pump an additional $300 million into 
     Everglades restoration and save consumers up to $500 million 
     a year.
       Ultimately, that may be the best solution.
       But as the editorial below explains in further detail, far 
     more pressing issues now demand the attention of government 
     leaders. Sugar's needs don't even make the list.

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the Miller-
Miller amendment, is a modest and simple reform of the sugar program. 
It is not the elimination of the program. In 1996, we tried to 
eliminate the program, missed by 5 votes then, but we kind of are 
reluctant in this Congress to eliminate anything, especially in the 
agriculture program.
  So this is a modest one-cent change in sugar. That is right. We are 
only going to lower the price from 18 cents to 17 cents, a 5 percent 
reduction in the price of sugar, which amounts to a $500 million 
savings, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $500 million 
worth of savings over the next 10 years.
  This is a very bipartisan bill, as my colleagues will see from the 
vote on this particular amendment. Even the secretaries of agriculture 
from three different administrations have come out in favor of this 
amendment. Secretary Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture under President 
Clinton, Secretary Clayton Yeutter under President Bush, and Secretary 
Jack Block under President Reagan, have all come out and said the sugar 
program is no longer sustainable, we need to change it, and this 
amendment is a good step in the right direction.
  Let me briefly comment about what the sugar program is. Well, the 
sugar program is a Federal program where we maintain a very high price 
for sugar in the United States. In fact, sugar prices in the United 
States are two to three times world prices. That is right, we pay two 
to three times world prices for sugar, and what it does is it hurts 
consumers, it hurts jobs, it hurts the taxpayers, bad on the 
environment, bad on trade.
  The way it works is the Federal Government tries to manage how much 
sugar is imported into the country, a very difficult challenge, but we 
have to allow some imports, and we do not grow enough in the United 
States. So it tries to manage trade, and here we are, the great free 
trading country of the world and we are managing trade

[[Page 18849]]

for sugar. Then what it does, it loans sugar farmers money, and it 
kicks the sugar as a guarantee and, if they cannot get this high price 
for sugar, the government says we will buy it back, and we were told 
back in 1996 it was no cost to this program. No cost to the sugar 
program.
  Last year the Federal Government bought $435 million worth of sugar 
and does not know what to do with the sugar. It is bad for the 
consumers as I have said. What I mean by bad for consumers is the 
General Accounting Office, which is the independent agency of Congress, 
we, division of Congress, branch of Congress, spend $400 million with 
the General Accounting Office to do studies for us. Their studies show 
it costs $1.9 billion a year. I know the other side is going to say, 
oh, that is not right. We spend $400 million for this agency in 
Congress to do these type of studies, and that is what it says, $1.9 
billion.
  As far as the taxpayers, they have already got this $435 million 
worth of sugar from last year, and they do not know what to do with it. 
The latest idea is they are going to have all these sugar farmers where 
we just bought their sugar, said if they will plow up $20,000 worth of 
sugar, we will give them $20,000 worth of sugar.
  Explain that one to the people back in Florida that we are going to 
buy their sugar and then give it back to them. It makes no sense.
  When it comes to jobs, we are losing jobs in this country, and I am 
sure my colleagues from Chicago will talk about how the candy industry 
is being really hurt in Chicago, whether it is a Bob Candy Company in 
Albany, Georgia, or the closing down of sugar plants in the city of 
Chicago. Mayor Daley and the city council of Chicago have come out in 
support of this amendment.
  When it gets to the environment, we are very concerned about our 
Florida Everglades, and last year Congress passed an $8 billion program 
for restoration of the Everglades, half paid by the State of Florida 
and half by the Federal Government. A large part of the problem is 
sugar farming. In 1960 there were 50,000 acres of sugar cane grown. 
Now, we have 500,000 acres of sugar cane, and it keeps increasing 
because our program encourages overproduction of sugar.
  What is included in this bill also is out of the $500 million worth 
of savings is a program where 300 million can be used for environmental 
purposes, for conservation and hopefully for the Everglades. It will be 
controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, but it creates a program 
that some of the savings can go back into conservation, and hopefully 
for the Everglades.
  Then we talk about trade. We are one of the great free traders in the 
world, except for its sugar. That is the reason the Secretaries of 
Agriculture have been opposed to this program because they cannot go 
negotiate and say we want to sell more corn, we want to sell more beef, 
we want to sell more soybean. We cannot do that because we are always 
defending the sugar program. So we need to be fair on this whole trade 
issue.
  As I said, this has got widespread support and lots of organizations 
are supporting it. Whether it is good government organizations or 
conservation groups, they are very strong in favor of this amendment.
  The sugar program is an anti-free trade, anti-free market movement, 
and I hope my colleagues will support me on this amendment.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to propose a time agreement on this 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that all time on this amendment be 
limited to 1\1/2\ hours, equally divided between a proponent and an 
opponent of the amendment and all amendments thereto.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would that be divided?
  Mr. COMBEST. It would be divided between a proponent and an opponent.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on our side the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) and I could divide that 45 minutes that 
we would have?
  Mr. COMBEST. In response to the gentleman from Florida's question, my 
next request would be a unanimous consent that half of the time for the 
opponent would be given to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) could propose the same 
unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of the 
time for the opponent be given to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the proponent and the 
opponent under the unanimous consent request each will be recognized 
for 45 minutes. The time allocated on both sides to the proponents and 
opponents will be divided equally accordingly.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Everett).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, we are now to what I call the M&M 
amendment, and I rise in opposition to the M&M amendment and hope my 
colleagues understand what this amendment will do. It may have been 
dressed up a little, softened a little, and added a section on giving 
money to the Everglades; but the intention is the same, to destroy the 
domestic sugar industry.
  I want to touch on two points that the proponents of this amendment 
will try to claim: first, we have all read about the candy 
manufacturers threatening to move to Mexico, they say because of the 
high price of sugar in the U.S.; that that is the reason they want to 
go. Let us be clear. That is not the reason they want to move to 
Mexico.
  According to USDA agriculture data, wholesale refined sugar prices 
are actually higher in Mexico than they are here. They have been 
running about 3 cents per pound higher for most of the last 2 years. 
The real reason they are moving is that American wages are 25 times 
higher, at $13.46 an hour in Chicago versus 53 cents an hour in Mexico. 
American energy costs are five times higher, at $11 per kilowatt in 
Chicago versus $2.38 in Mexico. American tax burdens are at least seven 
times higher. American protection for workers, the environment, water 
and air quality are much higher than Mexico's.
  Secondly, do not fall for the comparison of the U.S. price to the 
world market price. The so-called ``world market'' for sugar is just a 
dumping ground for surplus sugar from countries that subsidize sugar 
production and exports. The world market is distorted because of the 
elaborate sugar programs that exist in virtually every country that 
produces sugar. U.S. sugar policy has acted as a cushion against 
imports from the world dump market, where prices have run only about 
half the world average of cost of producing sugar for most of the last 
2 decades.
  America's sugar farmers are efficient by world standards and willing 
to compete on a level field against world sugar farmers, but cannot 
compete against foreign governments.
  In closing, let me be up front. The real purpose of the M&M amendment 
is to drive sugar down further. They are already down nearly 30 percent 
since 1996, for the benefit of the grocery chains, candy manufacturers 
and food manufacturing corporations, who are behind the M&M amendment.
  I oppose this and ask my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 
minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
support of this amendment to reform the outdated sugar program. This 
amendment is supported by Republicans, it is supported by Democrats, it 
is supported by conservatives, liberals, Easterners, Westerners and all 
those in between.
  Three former Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture also 
support this amendment. In a recent letter, which I will submit for the 
Record,

[[Page 18850]]

former Agriculture Secretaries Block, Yeutter, and Glickman say, ``The 
sugar program no longer serves the intended public policy goals.'' And 
they continue on by saying, ``The reform of the sugar program is long 
overdue.''
  That is what this amendment does. It provides for long overdue 
reform. I have joined with my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), in support of 
this amendment. We have joined together to support the reform of the 
sugar program for several clear and convincing reasons.
  The sugar program costs the taxpayers money. In fact, real money. In 
fact, a lot of money: $465 million last year alone. The sugar program 
costs consumers money. In fact, real money and a lot of money: $2 
billion in higher prices, according to the General Accounting Office. 
The sugar program takes away good paying jobs from the American 
workers. Hundreds of jobs have been lost at the C&H sugar refinery in 
California in my congressional district, and thousands of candy jobs in 
the district of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  The sugar program concentrates its rewards on a small number of 
wealthy farmers. In fact, the General Accounting Office reported that 
the largest 1 percent of the growers get 40 percent of the sugar 
program's benefits. The sugar program hurts the environment. In fact, 
the overproduction of sugar caused by the program is one of the main 
factors behind the tragic pollution of the Everglades in Florida.
  The Miller-Miller amendment is reasonable, and it provides the kind 
of reform we need. It does not end the sugar support program, but it 
does make the program less generous to the sugar growers and thereby 
makes sugar farming more of a market-based decision rather than a 
decision on how big the Federal subsidy will be. The effect is to 
control the overproduction, which has caused so many of these fiscal 
and environmental problems.
  The Miller-Miller amendment would save taxpayers money by reducing 
the direct purchases of excess sugar, putting those savings into 
agriculture conservation programs in desperate need of our support.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this ill-thought-
out amendment.
  The cost of sugar included in a $1.72 bag of candy is roughly 8 
cents. Candy companies actually spend more money on the wrapper than 
they do on the sugar that goes into the candy. So how exactly is it 
that the sugar producers are ripping off consumers? It is simple: they 
are not.
  In fact, while domestic sugar prices have dropped dramatically in 
recent years, a 25 percent decrease since 1996, the price consumers are 
paying for sugar in the grocery store has increased 4 percent during 
that same time period. Producer prices for sugar are at a 22-year low 
and consumer prices for sugar are at a 20-year high. Now, why is that? 
Where is that money going? Well, let me tell my colleagues.
  The price for raw sugar has been reduced 14.8 percent, it has been 
reduced 28.8 percent for wholesale sugar, at the same time the prices 
for sugar for cereal have increased 4.3 percent and candy at 7.7 
percent. So when I hear about all of those jobs lost in the candy 
industry, I am sorry that that has happened; but to try to lay the 
blame on sugar simply does not cut the mustard.
  The price of cookies has increased 8 percent, bakery products 8.5 
percent, ice cream 13.7 percent. Even more telling is the fact that 
cereal has increased by over 4 percent, as I said earlier, and candy, 
cookies, and so on. So when we hear the argument of the Miller-Miller 
amendment that this program will equal savings to consumers, think 
again. It will not equal savings to consumers; it will simply hurt 
producers because they are the ones who continue to pay for the 
reductions in sugar. The reduction in current producer prices has 
historically stopped at the pockets of the manufacturer, with consumer 
prices increasing while the struggling sugar industry continues to 
suffer.
  I have beet farmers in Wyoming. They are great stewards of the land. 
There is no pollution due to sugar beet farming, and these sugar beet 
farmers would be very ill affected. I ask all my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record additional information on our 
sugar policy:

Grocers Boost Retail Sugar Price to 20-Year High While Producer Prices 
                          Fall to 22-Year Low

       The price farmers receive for their sugar--the wholesale 
     refined sugar price--has been running at about a 22-year low 
     for most of the past years. Have consumers seen any benefit? 
     None. In fact, consumer prices for sugar just hit a 20-year 
     high. The big grocery chains not only failed to pass any of 
     their savings on lower producer prices for sugar along to 
     consumers. They did the opposite. They chose instead to 
     increase their retail sugar prices, and their profits.
       According to USDA data, the grocery-store price of sugar 
     rose to 44.3 cents per pound in July. That's the first time 
     since April of 1981 that the U.S. retail price of sugar has 
     reached 44 cents. And these grocers want this Congress to 
     believe that knocking the producer price for sugar down even 
     further would benefit consumers. How gullible do they think 
     we are?
       Lower producer prices for sugar mean more American beet and 
     cane farmers go out of business and more profits for grocery 
     chains. But the numbers irrefutably show that lower producer 
     prices for sugar do not mean lower prices for consumers.
                                  ____


  Food, Candy Manufacturers Benefit When Sugar Producer Prices Fall, 
                            Consumers Do Not

       The previous speaker described the windfall profits grocery 
     chains have siphoned from the pockets of American sugar 
     farmers--farmer prices are down 29%, but consumer prices have 
     risen since 1996. More than half the sugar we consume is in 
     the form of products, particularly highly sweetened products 
     such as candy, cookies, cakes, cereal and ice cream. Have the 
     food manufacturers given consumers a break on prices for 
     these products? Of course, not. Since 1996, cereal prices are 
     up 4%, candy prices are up 8%; cookies, cakes, and other 
     baked goods up 8%; ice cream, up 14%. All this while the 
     price they pay for their sugar is down by 29%. The food 
     manufacturers, like the grocery chains, want to keep sugar 
     farmers' prices down, so they can keep their corporate profit 
     margins up.

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding me this time.
  I rise against the M&M amendment and ask my colleagues to vote 
against it. I am deeply disturbed by the constant attack on the sugar 
industry. When they attack the sugar industry, they are really 
attacking my working people that are out there in the fields planting 
the cane and harvesting it, going to the mills and reducing it to brown 
sugar or molasses. There are about 6,000 jobs in my State that are 
dependent upon this industry, and throughout the country maybe 300,000 
or 400,000 individuals.
  I consider this really an attack upon an industry of hardworking 
farmers who have struggled to survive. There was a time, only 10 years 
ago, when we had 13 sugar plantations in operation. They have struggled 
to stay alive. There is nobody making tons of money in this industry, 
but Hawaii has benefited in the past from these plantations that have 
been permitted to exist, and they have existed because there had been a 
strong farm program. I thank the Congress and I thank the leadership 
for continuing to support that concept.
  Somehow or other there is a myth out there that there is a huge 
subsidy for sugar in this bill or anywhere. There is no subsidy. In 
fact, there is explicit language in the bill that says, and it directs 
the Secretary of Agriculture to operate the sugar program at no cost to 
the American taxpayer. So what are we talking about? We are talking 
about the candy factories and people in the international marketing 
combine.
  And, incidentally, the three former Secretaries of Agriculture that 
distributed a letter are all lobbyists for mega industries that are 
selling candy, Nabisco and Nestles and whatever. So we have to look 
critically at this letter.
  This is about farmers. Hardworking people. There is no subsidy. In 
fact,

[[Page 18851]]

there is a provision in this bill that says it should have no cost to 
the American taxpayer. So where is the conflict? There is none. It 
seems to me that we are generally for the people who produce an 
essential commodity for our American market, so we should not be 
considering this kind of destructive amendment which would kill our 
industry and destroy the only two that remain now in my State. Two 
struggling plantations.
  If this amendment should pass, we will be wiped out, and 6,000 
workers in my State will be out of work. Already my State has been 
decimated after September 11 because of what happened and the closing 
down of the tourist industry. We simply cannot tolerate this. So I ask 
my colleagues to balance the equities today. It does not cost the 
taxpayers a dime. There is no subsidy. This is a genuine farm product 
that we are producing.
  Kill the M&M amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment offered by 
Representative Dan Miller and Representative George Miller and ask that 
my colleagues vote against it.
  I am deeply disturbed by the determination of the amendment's 
sponsors to destroy our nation's sugar industry. I shudder to think of 
the impact that this amendment would have on my state's economy. Hawaii 
has already been hit very hard by the tragedy of September 11th. In the 
past 2 weeks, some 6,000 workers have been added to our State's 
unemployment lines because of the dramatic decline in the number of 
visitors coming to our islands.
  I must admit that I take this attack on the American sugar industry 
very personally. I do not believe that any sugar-growing area of the 
country has taken the hits that my rural district in Hawaii has. In 
1986, 13 sugar factories were operating and sugarcane was grown on all 
of the four major islands. The beautiful fields of green waving 
sugarcane were a cherished part of our landscape. Today, only two sugar 
companies are still operating--one on the island of Maui and one on 
Kauai. The survival of these remaining companies on which the fragile 
rural economies of these islands depend would be severely jeopardized 
if Miller-Miller became law.
  Ironically, Hawaii produces more sugar per acre with fewer person 
hours per ton of sugar produced than anywhere else in the world. But we 
pay our productive workers a fair wage and good benefits and we adhere 
to the world's highest environmental standards. Those who seek to kill 
America's sugar industry--and make no mistake, that is the goal here--
would export good American jobs to countries that exploit their workers 
and employ child labor.
  I tire of engaging in this same fight year after year and having to 
address the misinformation promulgated by opponents of the U.S. sugar 
program. I deeply respect the integrity of the sponsors of this 
amendment, but I am puzzled by their relentless vendetta against 
American sugar farmers.
  I have read letters in support of the Miller-Miller amendment which 
lead me to believe that the sponsors truly do not understand the issue. 
One of the letters claims that
  ``Jobs are being lost by the thousands as candy makers, bakeries, 
sugar cane refiners, cranberry farmers and jobs that depend on these 
industries are lost because the rest of the world pays 7 cents per 
pound for sugar while American businesses are forced to pay prices at 
least 150% higher.''
  This is simply untrue! Opponents of the U.S. sugar program point to 
the cost of American-grown sugar compared with the so-called ``world 
price'' of sugar. But this ``world price'' sugar represents a mere 20% 
of the worldwide sugar traded and sold. This 20% is offered at dump 
market prices that are barely half the actual cost of production. 
Nations that sell this dump sugar can only do so because the bulk of 
their production is being purchased at prices that cover or exceed 
actual production costs. For example, growers in the European Union 
receive 31 cents per pound compared with the 18 cents-22 cents price 
floor for American sugarcane and sugar beet growers provided by H.R. 
2646.
  No one--not even countries that use child labor--can product raw 
sugar for 7 cents a pound. The ``world price'' dump market represents 
the subsidized surpluses that countries dump on the world market for 
whatever price the surplus sugar will bring.
  Two-thirds of the world's sugar is produced at a higher cost than in 
the United States, even though American producers adhere to the world's 
highest government standards and costs for labor and environmental 
protections. U.S. beet sugar producers are the most efficient beet 
sugar producers in the world, and American sugarcane producers rank 
28th lowest cost among 62 countries--almost all of which are developing 
countries with deplorable labor and environmental practices.
  So clearly, the ``rest of the world'' is not paying 7 cents per pound 
for sugar--many are paying far more than Americans. In fact, the retail 
cost of sugar in the United States is 20% below the average paid in 
other developed countries. U.S. sugar is about the most affordable in 
the world--third lowest in the world in terms of minutes of work (1.9 
minutes) to buy one pound of sugar.
  We are told that jobs are being lost because manufacturers of candy 
and baked goods will move to Mexico for cheaper sugar. I am sorry if 
any of my colleagues have been sincerely taken in by this claim, but it 
too is utterly false. In fact, the wholesale price that manufacturers 
pay for sugar is higher in Mexico than in the Unites States. Businesses 
are moving south for cheaper labor, cheaper energy, lower taxes, and 
lower or nonexistent environmental standards--not for cheaper sugar.
  Many claim that their opposition to the U.S. sugar program is based 
on a concern for consumers who would benefit from lower prices. Now, I 
read all the mail that comes from my constituents and I must admit that 
I do not remember a single letter from a constituent who was concerned 
about the impact of sugar prices on their family's budget. Sugar in 
America is so cheap that it is given away in restaurants--it only costs 
43 a pound retail! Give me a break!
  U.S. producer prices for sugar have been down nearly 30% since 1996, 
a financial disaster for thousands of American sugar farmers. But 
grocers and food manufacturers--the principal supporters of the Miller-
Miller amendment--have passed none of these lower prices along to 
consumers. Retail prices for sugar, candy, ice cream, and other 
sweetened products are up, not down, though producer prices have fallen 
significantly over the past five years.
  The deeply flawed study by the GAO has been thoroughly discredited by 
the USDA. Economists at the USDA have ``serious concerns'' about the 
GAO report, which ``suffers in a number of regards relative to both the 
analytical approach and . . . the resulting conclusions.'' USDA 
concluded: ``GAO has not attempted to realistically model the U.S. 
sugar industry. The validity of the results are, therefore, suspect and 
should not be quoted authoritatively.'' As with the 1993 version of 
this report, the GAO assumes that food retailers and manufacturers 
would pass every cent of savings along to consumers--we have convincing 
evidence that this has not happened, nor will it ever.
  Why is the sugar industry being singled out? According to USDA, last 
year was the only year in which U.S. sugar policy was not a revenue 
raiser. And this one-time outlay will be defrayed or possibly 
eliminated when the government sells its surplus sugar. The remaining 
two sugar companies in Hawaii provide some of the best jobs on these 
islands. These long-time ``kama`aina'' companies are struggling to keep 
this historic industry alive. Sugar has been grown on many of these 
lands for more than 100 years.
  Do not be concerned about the cost of the sugar program in this bill. 
H.R. 2646 contains language that directs the Secretary of Agriculture 
to operate the sugar program at no cost to the American taxpayer.
  I was frankly astonished to read the poorly written, inaccurate 
letter signed by 3 former Secretaries of Agriculture. The Miller-Miller 
proponents have obviously confused the former Secretaries on a number 
of issues. They claim that Miller-Miller reduces price supports by a 
modest amount--in fact, it effectively reduces the support price by 3 
cents--from 18 cents to 15 cents. Let's remember that the loan rate has 
been frozen at 18 cents for the past 16 years! In any other crop we'd 
be looking at an increase--not a reduction.
  The former Secretaries say the sugar program is ``costly to 
taxpayers'' but sugar is the only commodity program in the new Farm 
Bill designed to run at no cost to taxpayers. The Miller-Miller 
amendment would remove the supply management tools that would enable 
the Secretary of Agriculture to operate the program at no cost--Miller-
Miller would make sugar policy costly to taxpayers.
  The U.S. sugar and corn sweetener producing industry accounts, 
directly and indirectly, for an estimated 420,000 American jobs in 42 
states and for more than $26 billion per year in economic activity.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Miller-Miller amendment and to 
support America's efficient and hard-working sugar farmers.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to mention that while my colleague from Hawaii brings up 
the fact

[[Page 18852]]

there is no net cost, that is not what we were told back in 1996. Last 
year, the Federal Government bought $435 million worth of sugar. They 
have no use for it. They cannot even give it to Afghanistan, let alone 
give it away in this country. And we are paying millions of dollars to 
store that 750,000 tons of sugar. So it does cost real dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today in support of the Miller-Miller amendment to reform the 
U.S. sugar program. Over the next 2 months, millions of Americans will 
go to their neighborhood grocery stores to do some food shopping. Very 
few, if any, of our citizens will realize that the sugar in the 
processed foods, cereal, and ice cream they buy is subject to a cost 
about double the world price, courtesy of the U.S. Congress and the 
sugar program.
  Some of these grocery shoppers may head over to the candy cane aisle, 
particularly as we get closer to the Christmas season. However, once 
again, very few will know that Bob's Candies of Albany, Georgia, the 
Nation's largest candy cane manufacturer, had to ship some of its 
manufacturing jobs out of the country, to Jamaica, so it could buy 
sugar that was 50 percent cheaper than in the United States. They do 
not know that the president of Bob's Candies, Mr. Greg McCormick, 
stated that reforming the U.S. sugar company would allow his company to 
keep those same jobs in America and allow the retail price of his candy 
canes to be lowered by 10 to 15 cents a package.
  As our citizens walk up to the cash register at this grocery store to 
pay their food bill, they will not realize the sugar program is costing 
American consumers nearly $2 billion a year in added food costs, 
according to the General Accounting Office. As they pull the dollars 
out of their wallet, they will not realize that last year our Federal 
Government had to spend 465 million taxpayer dollars from the U.S. 
treasury to buy surplus domestic sugar and keep the price artificially 
high.

                              {time}  1745

  Well, while very few Americans may realize these facts, there are 
several well-respected watchdog groups who are aware of the problem. 
For example, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax 
Reform, and the Heritage Foundation all oppose the sugar program.
  The sugar program has also caught the attention of well-respected 
environmental groups such as the National Audubon Society and the 
Everglades Trust. These groups know that sugar cane in the Everglades 
agricultural area has exploded from 50,000 acres in 1960 to nearly 
500,000 acres today, thanks in part to the U.S. sugar program.
  If these facts are true, and they are, why do we have the sugar 
program? Are these sugar growers bad people? Absolutely not. They are 
hardworking Americans. They pay taxes. They create thousands of jobs. 
They are now applying fertilizer to their crops in a very 
environmentally friendly manner, and they are frustrated that foreign 
markets are closed to them.
  In light of these trade barriers erected by certain foreign 
countries, our domestic sugar growers feel they need this complicated 
system of price supports, import restrictions, and loan guarantees to 
continue in order to thrive.
  Well, I agree 100 percent that our country should do everything in 
its power when negotiating these trade agreements to open up foreign 
markets for our domestic sugar, citrus, and vegetable growers. These 
concerns should be addressed head-on at the negotiating table by the 
Bush administration.
  Until that happens, I believe that the Miller-Miller amendment 
strikes the appropriate balance between consumers and sugar growers 
because it mends, but does not end, the U.S. sugar program. Under this 
amendment, the price support is lowered one penny, from 18 cents to 17 
cents per pound. This, coupled with other reforms, will save the 
Federal Government $500 million over the next 10 years, according to 
the CBO.
  Of that amount, the Miller-Miller amendment states that up to $300 
million will be used to restore the Florida Everglades. For these 
reasons I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Miller-Miller 
amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues eat, they are 
involved in agriculture and they have a stake in America's oldest and 
most basic policy. But our sugar policy is defective, 
counterproductive, and is suffocating our economy. The media has 
characterized it correctly as being a scandal.
  I am proud of the fact that I come from the State of Illinois, an 
agricultural powerhouse. I was raised on a small farm in Arkansas, and 
so I grew up enjoying the values of rural life. And I know what it 
means for a family to survive on hard work, ingenuity, creativity, and 
the sweat of their brow.
  I support Federal programs which create decent, livable help so that 
farmers can live a decent life. But when I find a program like the 
sugar program where 1 percent of the farms, just 17 farms, 1 percent, 
collect 58 percent of the subsidy, I am outraged. I am outraged because 
what it means is that the pot has already been sweetened for the 
wealthy, for the few.
  Mr. Chairman, subsidies should be given to the needy, not the greedy. 
The fallout from this wrong-headed sugar subsidy program ripples across 
our entire economy. I represent what could be called the candy capital 
of America. Illinois has 31,000 individuals employed in the 
confectionery industry, but we have lost 11 percent of our workforce, 
and there has been no new plant development since the institution of 
this program. We spent over $250 million for sugar last year. Had this 
program not been in effect, we would have spent probably only half that 
much, while the giant corporate agricultural combines who benefit the 
most from the sugar subsidies are not only taking our money, but in 
some instances they are causing pollution in certain parts of the 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for change. It is time for America to stop 
playing sugar daddy to a handful of monopolistic sugar plantations. The 
Miller-Miller amendment brings some rationality and fairness to the 
industry. The Miller-Miller amendment will protect family farms, 
protect jobs in the sugar and confectionery industry and protect our 
environment.
  We cannot allow ourselves to get sugar-daddied out and sweetened into 
bad policies. I would urge every Member who believes in fairness, who 
believes that small farmers should have help and assistance, I would 
urge them to support the Miller-Miller amendment and do not be a 
marshmallow and get suckered in.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller). I appreciate the importance of the Everglades; however, I 
oppose the amendment.
  Sugar policy, contrary to what Members have been hearing, has been 
one of the most successful farm programs from 1991 to 2002. It has been 
the most successful. We have heard about $465 million in payment, that 
was for 1 year. That was the year 2000. Every other year, 11 out of 12 
years, the sugar industry has paid the Federal Government more than it 
has gotten back, but we are labeling this as a boondoggle.
  I would like to also point out, as my colleagues have said, sugar 
prices have fallen 30 percent since 1996. This has been primarily due 
to dumping of sugar by Mexico since NAFTA was formed.
  In my State, the State of Nebraska, we have seen the fallout. 
Currently there have been 17 sugar factories that have closed in the 
last 4 or 5 years which represents roughly 40 percent of all of the 
factories in the country, in the United States. We currently have

[[Page 18853]]

750 producers in the State of Nebraska. In order to open their sugar 
factory, in order to survive, they have had to go together and form a 
cooperative and pay $185 to $220 per acre in order to keep this thing 
going. They are trying to save the sugar beet industry in Nebraska, in 
Montana, in Idaho, in Wyoming.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask to have it explained to me why producers in those 
States need to be taxed 2 cents a pound on sugar additionally, and also 
have their loan rate reduced below the cost of production, in order to 
pay for renovation of the Everglades?
  We just went through a big debate where 10 or 12 or 15 States were 
possibly getting a disproportionate amount of commodities; and now we 
are talking about laying the wood to, to coin a term, to a group of 
States that have nothing to do with the Everglades to pay for the 
Everglades. This has already been taken care of. The 1994 Everglades 
Forever Act provided $685 million, and the 2000 Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan also addresses this problem.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I support 
the bill.
  Government's primary function is to protect the people. A stable 
domestic food supply is as important to national defense as a military 
weapon. Because of a national farm policy, and we all know this and all 
Members have to do is look around the country and the world, American 
consumers spend less than 11 percent of their income on food.
  If Members believe this amendment will reduce the cost of products 
containing sugar, they need to listen to these facts. Between 1990 and 
2000, the price of raw sugar fell 18 percent; wholesale refined sugar 
fell nearly 31 percent; but during that same period of time the 
consumer price of cereal, candy, ice cream, and bakery products 
increased by 25 to 36 percent.
  Few of us remember the rationing of basic foodstuffs in World War II. 
In addition to steel and rubber, sugar was rationed. Why? Because it is 
essential to a balanced diet, and domestic sources were limited. Even 
today, domestic sugar product is not enough to meet our domestic 
demand.
  If Congress passes this amendment, the domestic sugar industry will 
be devastated and American consumers will have to depend on uncertain 
foreign sources, which by the way, subsidizes their sugar program. But 
as we are also talking about the economy and stimulus packages around 
here and with unemployment going up, let me make this point. There are 
over 40,000 workers that are involved in this industry. These are 
machinists. These are people making $35,000 to $40,000 with health care 
insurance.
  If Members wonder why I am supporting this amendment, those are three 
or four good reasons. I support a strong domestic food production 
industry because it helps our economy and it protects our people.
  Mr. Chairman, if Members truly believe in buying American and made in 
America, Members need to reject this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, after the September 11 attack, our economy 
was weakened and our military expenses have gone up. This is not the 
time to levy a $1.8 billion indirect tax on American consumers to 
charge a Stalinist high sugar price set by bureaucrats in Washington.
  This program also costs over $400 million in taxpayer funds to 
overproduce sugar. These funds should go directly to our men and women 
in uniform, for the reconstruction of New York, and for securing Social 
Security, not politically connected sugar growers lobbying the 
government for a government handout in time of war. To these sugar 
growers we should say we cannot afford to give a government handout, 
there is a war on.
  Mayor Daley of Chicago wrote to me with concerns for the jobs of 
31,000 workers in Illinois threatened by the sugar program. These jobs 
are in many disadvantaged communities like North Chicago, Illinois, my 
State's second poorest community; and the legendary Brach's Candy 
Company, a Chicago institution, recently shut its doors for good, 
moving 1,100 jobs overseas due to high production costs caused by this 
sugar program.
  The simple fact is: as a result of this program, foreign candy sales 
have gone up over 70 percent in the last 5 years and could reach 40 
percent of total sales within the next 5 years. Companies such as Jelly 
Belly of North Chicago and Craft of Glenview will suffer the same fate 
as Brach's if we do not reform this program.
  We cannot sit idly by while thousands of people lose their jobs so 
that sugar growers can reach into the taxpayer's pocket for yet another 
handout. These subsidies cannibalize our economy and segregate us into 
economic winners and losers.
  The Miller-Miller sugar reform amendment is different from past 
reform amendments which would have ended the sugar subsidy program. 
This amendment will reform, not eliminate the program; and it will make 
it more market oriented, bringing it in line with the administration's 
principle that we should move away from price supports towards our core 
belief in free and open markets.
  The sugar subsidy program cost the taxpayers $465 million last year, 
and now costs the government $1 million a month just to store excess 
sugar. We cannot sit by while thousands of our constituents lose their 
jobs because politically connected growers raid the treasury and 
millions of tons of sugar rots away in storage.
  Mr. Chairman, please join me in voting against this outdated, unfair 
subsidy that pits American's economic interests against each other and 
against the principles of free enterprise.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Miller-Miller 
sugar amendment. The U.S. sugar program is in critical need of reform. 
Unlike most farm programs, the U.S. sugar program has avoided any 
market-oriented reform for many years. Artificially high price supports 
have distorted the markets leading to expanded domestic production and 
oversupply of the U.S. market.
  Approximately 50 percent of government payments go to the largest 8 
percent of farms, usually corporate owned. A little more than half of 
all U.S. farmers share in only 13 percent of the government payments. 
The artificially stimulated domestic price of sugar is often twice the 
world price. This hurts the American consumers who are forced to pay 
substantially more for sugar and sugar-containing products.

                              {time}  1800

  Although we do not have a sugar cane crop of any size in Missouri, we 
do have corn growers who produce a substantial amount of sweeteners. 
The Missouri corn growers do not create the environmental concerns as 
do the cane growers and they also make outstanding contributions to our 
alternative fuels industries and associated research. We will have to 
find common ground on effecting remedies for the problem.
  The Miller-Miller amendment does not gut or eliminate the sugar 
program. The amendment reduces the sugar price support rate and current 
incentives for overproduction. The amendment increases the penalties 
that big sugar processing plants must pay if they fail to repay 
government loans. It would make some modest reforms to make the program 
more market-oriented, and at the same time, promote conservation. I am 
in favor of most conservation aspects of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I am troubled that the bill shows no 
concern for fiscal constraint. Most of us promised voters that we would 
protect the Social Security trust fund and Medicare funds.
  Let us vote for the Miller-Miller amendment. Let us refrain from 
passing several of the budget-busting programs without consideration of 
the overall budget. We need a farm bill

[[Page 18854]]

that is responsible, and we need a bill in a form that we can vote for. 
I cannot vote for this bill in this form.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller-Miller 
amendment. I cannot debate the issue with my colleagues from the urban 
areas on subsidization because they obviously do not understand the 
sugar program. It is not subsidized. Read my lips. It is not 
subsidized.
  What we have in this country is a problem. We have an oversupply of 
foreign sugar being brought into the country. That is the problem we 
have got. Prices are down but demand is up. So what creates the prices 
being down? The subsidization of foreign sugar. When you talk about 
these rich corporations, they are so rich they are filing bankruptcy. 
Does that not tell you a lot?
  When was the last time a rich corporation making all this money in a 
farm program would file bankruptcy? Now we have a situation in Montana 
where finally some of the producers are trying to pull themselves up by 
their bootstraps, buy those factories, reopen them under a value-added 
idea, and we are going to kick them. We are going to say, ``No, we're 
sorry, that's just not good enough. We not only don't want you to be in 
business, we're going to now consider additional trade promotion 
authority so we can bring more subsidized product in to put the rest of 
you out of business.''
  I am a supporter of free trade, but I am here to tell you right now, 
after reading the documents that have been floating around from the 
administration, Mr. President and your administration, if you are 
listening, you are rapidly losing me, because I do not get it. We do 
not have an oversupply of sugar in this country. What we now have is an 
oversupply of foreign competition that do not respect our labor laws, 
do not respect our environment and do not respect American agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Montana on his 
eloquence. I also want to let him know, however, that this is one 
Member from an urban area that understands that there is no subsidy in 
this program. And let me be clear about that and if there are Members 
from the urban cities and suburbs that think there is, there is not a 
cash subsidy here. That is a misrepresentation.
  But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment offers us a really 
easy choice. Do we really want sugar grown by American farmers? Do we 
really? Because if we do not, then vote for this amendment, because its 
import will effectively put out of business farmers dealing in sugar in 
this country. Understand that and be clear about it.
  Now, some argue that this amendment would produce savings for 
consumers. Well, let me suggest, do not hold your breath. Okay? Do you 
really believe a Milky Way bar or a can of Pepsi is going to go down in 
price? Give me a break. The hard empirical evidence establishes clearly 
that none of the savings on cheap, subsidized, foreign sugar will be 
passed along to consumers. And neither will increased wages for the 
workers in my friend from Illinois' district. Be assured of that. Be 
assured of that.
  So if you support American farmers, if you are concerned about 
environmental standards and want to protect American jobs, then vote 
against this amendment and support the committee's sugar provision in 
the farm bill. It is an easy choice.
  Mr. Chairman, make my sugar American. Oppose the Miller-Miller 
amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-
Miller amendment. I must say that I oppose this entire bill. I think it 
is subsidy run amuck. I did not come here to Congress to reward this 
industry or another or pit one industry against another, and I think 
that that is what we are doing in this farm bill. It is a chicken-in-
every-pot syndrome. We criticize every other country in the world for 
doing this and then we embrace it ourselves.
  This is one element of sanity in a very bad bill. I would encourage 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. I am only sorry that it is not cosponsored in addition by 
our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller) so it could 
be the Miller sugar cube.
  This program is one example where we are led to believe that it is 
not a problem of subsidization that ends up distorting our markets, 
disadvantaging consumers and posing great risks to the environment. 
This year, the bizarre system that artificially raises the price of 
sugar in the United States, puts import restrictions on the commodity 
while at the same time paying farmers to plow over their crop and 
allowing the sugar producers to pay back their loans with sugar is not 
subsidization, not dealing with the market, I beg to differ.
  I would suggest that any econ student 101 armed with the basic 
information from the GAO reports could argue persuasively to the 
contrary. And all of this for a crop that wreaks havoc on the 
environment, especially in the Florida Everglades.
  We have heard that there is a disproportionately few number of people 
who benefit from this program, and of those the majority are large 
scale farmers and producers. We have heard that 40 percent of the 
benefits go to 1 percent of the growers, precious little getting to the 
small family farm, and they continue to go out of business every year. 
We must reassess the myth that somehow this subsidy to corporate sugar 
producers is paid for by magic and that there is no risk to the 
consumer or the taxpayer.
  As my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) pointed out, we 
heard that before in 1996. The sugar subsidy we are talking about here 
costs American consumers almost $2 billion a year. And that has no 
effect on the economy? I beg to differ. I would think that some of my 
free market friends would be laughed out of the room if they suggested 
it in other areas.
  In addition to costing the taxpayer, inflating the cost to two or 
sometimes three times the world price, we are, as we have heard, losing 
American jobs now, not theoretically, but because it is cheaper to move 
the production overseas while the American public is paying a million 
dollars a month just to store the excess sugar right now.
  As we move into a more globalized economy, we should not be 
supporting a backward program that makes it difficult for us to meet 
the demands of our agreements with the World Trade Organization and 
NAFTA. We have heard people here on this floor call for fairness, and 
then we turn around and do something that is goofy.
  But I oppose this not just because of the cycle of subsidization, the 
limitation on free trade and the stockpiling, my particular interest 
has to do with the environment. We have been involved in Congress here 
trying to repair decades of damage to the Everglades. The sugar program 
has expanded sugar cane production in Florida. What was it in 1960? 
50,000 acres. What is it today? Almost 500,000 acres, severely harming 
the natural environment of southern Florida, while we in this Chamber 
invested $8 billion as a down payment to restore the damage, and we are 
still subsidizing an industry that is polluting it with the 
phosphorous-laden agricultural runoff.
  I would strongly suggest that we break this vicious cycle. The 
amendment before us would reduce the damage the sugar program does to 
the environment, to our international trade agreements and to the 
consumer pocketbook. It would reduce price supports, government quotas, 
and bring a greater market orientation to the program, not abolishing 
it. It would authorize up

[[Page 18855]]

to $300 million in savings from the amendment to go towards 
conservation and environmental stewardship, which are a priority to all 
of us because the Everglades problem is a national problem.
  This is where our priorities need to be, supporting our natural 
ecosystems, saving the public money, not monkeying around with the 
market. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. COMBEST. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller-Miller amendment. It 
kicks the sugar farmers when they are down. It is interesting that 
since 1996, prices of sugar are down nearly 30 percent. It is also, if 
you look at it among the comparative in the world, it is among the most 
affordable in the world, 20 percent below the developed country average 
and essentially unchanged since 1990.
  Who benefits when prices are down? It is certainly not the consumer. 
And who suffers? It is certainly the farmer. In reality, history shows 
inarguably that users of sugar do not pass their savings on for sugar 
and other ingredients to the consumer. Lower commodity prices are just 
an opportunity for higher profits at the expense of the farmer. As 
evidence, retail prices for sugar, candy, ice cream and other sweetened 
products are up, not down, though the prices that are received by the 
farmer are substantially down over the last 5 years.
  This is an amendment that would have tremendous implications to the 
farmer. It does nothing to help the consumer in terms of lower prices 
for commodities. I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong opposition 
to the Miller-Miller amendment. This amendment is bad public policy for 
two simple reasons. First, it would have a devastating effect on sugar 
producers, not only in my district, but in districts across 42 other 
States as well. These producers generate 370,000 jobs and have an 
annual impact of $26 billion per year on the national economy.
  Second, it hurts consumers, because without our current sugar policy, 
prices for this important commodity would skyrocket. Sugar is an 
essential, even strategic ingredient in our Nation's food system, yet 
we are the fourth largest importer of sugar in the world. Our family 
farmers who grow sugar are globally competitive but cannot compete 
against foreign treasuries and predatory trade practices. Maintaining a 
reliable supply of sugar at competitive prices for consumers, 
responding to unfair foreign trade practices and letting farmers 
receive their income from the market and not the government is at the 
heart of U.S. sugar policy.
  Sugar prices have plummeted over the past 2 years and family farmers 
are facing a monumental challenge: Buy the factories that process your 
beets or go out of business. Almost half of the remaining sugar beet 
factories in the United States are currently for sale to the farmers 
who grow sugar beets. In fact, producers in my district are pooling 
their resources to buy the Michigan Sugar Company. The producers in my 
district need all the help and advantages we can give them.
  Today, we have an opportunity to ensure our farmers global 
competitiveness. Given the depressed sugar market and the overall 
agricultural economy, it is almost impossible for America's family 
farmers and rural bankers to take the next step and form farmer-owned 
cooperatives.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a classmate from the 103rd 
Congress.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess the bottom line is that last year the U.S. 
Treasury spent a total of $465 million buying sugar and then spent 
another $1.4 million a month, a month, to store the 1 million tons of 
surplus sugar produced. In other words, the Government basically 
encourages growers to overproduce excess sugar, and then purchases this 
back at the expense partly of the American taxpayer.
  The General Accounting Office estimates that consumers and users pay 
an extra $1.9 billion annually in what can be called a hidden tax 
because of the sugar program. So every time an American buys a candy 
bar or a carton of ice cream or anything that is not sugar-free, 
basically they are affected by this policy.
  Now, if we go back to the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, as I understood 
the act, what it was supposed to do was to be just that, the freedom to 
farm. It was meant to gradually decline payments so farmers could wean 
themselves from the Government's micro-management and send them on a 
path toward free markets. But the Federal Government continues 
basically through this arrangement to subsidize sugar producers by 
maintaining higher prices than the prices would be.
  The sugar program keeps U.S. sugar prices more than twice as high as 
the world market, and the Government's involvement, arguably, has 
helped force the three-quarters of U.S. sugar refineries that have gone 
out of business to close down. So we have had three-quarters of the 
refineries close down the last few years. Basically, those refineries 
have been moved offshore, so thousands of jobs have been lost in that 
sector.
  The Miller-Miller amendment, this amendment, rejects government 
quotas on marketing; it reduces price supports and brings greater 
market orientation to U.S. sugar policy. That is why I support the 
amendment. I think it moves us away from corporate welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Miller-Miller, 
or M&M, amendment, to scale back the sugar price support provisions of 
the Farm Security Act. In a year in which we have seen major reductions 
in taxes to spur our ailing economy, it is only fitting that we scale 
back the sugar program.
  Clearly the sugar program is a tax. It artificially raises the price 
of sugar on consumers, small businesses, and the confectionery 
industry. The GAO estimates that the sugar tax costs consumers $1.8 
billion annually. Whether you live in the suburbs, the countryside or 
in a major metropolitan area, you pay a higher price for this basic 
commodity. Unfortunately, because this tax is regressive, the burden of 
the sugar program disproportionately impacts the poor.
  The sugar tax also hurts small businesses, such as mom and pop 
grocery stores and small bakeries. Unfortunately, many of these corner 
stores, which serve small urban towns and inner-city neighborhoods, 
must pass the cost of high sugar prices on to consumers.
  Finally, large U.S. businesses have been hurt by the sugar tax. The 
confectionery industry has been placed at a competitive disadvantage 
because foreign competitors have access to cheaper sugar. Many of these 
industries are being forced to consider relocating abroad to remain 
competitive. In Chicago alone, employment in the confectionery sector 
is down by 11 percent.
  However, the sugar tax is a national problem. As many as 293,000 
workers in 20 States depend on the confectionery industry for their 
livelihood. The sugar tax must be scaled back to help U.S. consumers, 
small businesses and industry.
  We are not asking for a repeal of the sugar program, but merely a 
fair and equitable reduction in some of its most onerous provisions. 
The M&M amendment continues to protect sugar growers without unduly 
burdening U.S. consumers and businesses.
  To the opponents of this amendment, I say to you that your words are 
strong, but your conclusion is wrong. Scale back the sugar price cost 
provision.

[[Page 18856]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair 
would advise Members that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has 
12\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) has 
12 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 13 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) has 7 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am a free-trader, a fair-
trader, an original cosponsor of the bill to grant the President Trade 
Promotion Authority, and I am a strong supporter of markets, if 
efficient markets exist. But our hard-working sugar producers are 
amongst the most cost efficient in the world. In fact, our sugar beet 
growers, including over 600 growers in my district in Southwest 
Minnesota, are among the lowest-cost producers of sugar in the world. 
They are willing to compete on a level playing field, but cannot 
compete against foreign governments that encourage excess production 
and dump that excess production on the world market. The world dump 
market price is well below the world cost to produce sugar and is not 
sustainable.
  We do need to continue to push for fair trade in sugar. With a level 
playing field, I am confident that our sugar producers cannot only 
compete, but they can prosper. But if we sacrifice our sugar farmers 
now and become ourselves dependent on a dump market price, we will 
become dependent on foreign producers. If they stop subsidizing those 
foreign producers, we are going to be paying higher prices for sugar 
than we are today.
  Let us not abandon an efficient, cost-effective industry that is 
providing jobs and incomes for our rural areas. I encourage Members to 
oppose the Miller-Miller amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this body, are there any Members 
here who know more about this farm bill than the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)? The answer 
is no. And both of them oppose this particular measure.
  The sugar industry supports 420,000 jobs in America. I do not know of 
any candy manufacturer or big food chain that has gone out of business 
because of the price of sugar.
  I wish I could answer all of my colleagues' statements, but I cannot. 
Assuredly, they are dead wrong about the Everglades. I do not just fly 
there; I live there. The sugar industry has reduced its circumstances 
with reference to the Everglades by 55 percent and is ahead of the 
Everglades restoration schedule all the way around the board. What you 
need to know is, among other things, the sugar industry has contributed 
$279 million towards paying off the national debt since 1991. No other 
commodity has done that.
  I personally am just tired of the misinformation that I continue to 
hear. I understand Members' parochial concerns. That is what I have. 
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and I represent 75 percent of 
the sugar cane growing that is done in the United States of America. 
But I can tell you this, I have checked a little bit around the world. 
Our nearest neighbor, our biggest, nearest neighbor, Mexico, Mexico's 
sugar costs 3 cents more today than in America.
  I do not understand whether or not these people have traveled 
anywhere in this world or not, but there is a basic economic principle: 
find a void and fill it. That is what other sugar producing countries 
are waiting for. Kill the sugar industry, if you will, and you expect 
that they are just going to sit on the sidelines? Name me the product 
that when it went out of business in America, all of a sudden became 
cheaper? How about steel as an example? We are driving our industry 
offshore.
  Now, understand this: as I said, I do not just fly there; I live 
there. When I drive down Highway 27 to Pahokee, I see a town choking. 
When I go there to Okeechobee, I have tears in my eyes at the pain that 
is caused because of the loss of jobs. The same holds true for Belle 
Glade and Clewiston. I was in Clewiston on a day when 44 people were 
told they did not have their jobs anymore.
  Now, I want candy to exist, I want the food chain to exist, and I 
want the sugar program to exist; and I want all of us to do right by 
each other, rather than kicking each other when we are down.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me respond to a couple of questions that have come 
up in this debate. First of all, they talk about the cost of it, and 
they say, well, the sugar is lower here, there, it does not cost 
anything.
  I want to refer once again to the General Accounting Office report, 
the GAO. We pay this agency, which is a part of Congress, $400 million 
a year to do studies for us. It is not a partisan organization; it is 
not a biased organization. It has the experts, or brings in the 
consultants, to come up with the best knowledge they can.
  In this case it was asked, what is the cost of the sugar program? It 
was a very detailed report. They are the ones that came up with the 
$1.9 billion cost. So the program really does cost money. You say it 
does not cost anything.
  My colleague from Florida was talking about jobs. We are concerned 
about jobs. But what about the candy companies that are losing jobs? 
Here is an article from the Nashville Business Journal about a company, 
Bradley Candy Corporation, on June 29 closed their doors and went out 
of business.
  My colleague from Chicago talks about the companies in Chicago going 
out of business. Bob's Candy from Albany, Georgia, makes candy canes. 
Hard candy is the one that uses a lot of sugar. They are being driven 
offshore for production because the cost of sugar in something like 
candy canes just makes it prohibitive to compete.
  Let me also make a comment about the trade issue. Many of my 
colleagues say they are free-traders. I am a little baffled by my 
colleagues that support free trade, especially if you support it in the 
grains and soybeans and such. We are big exporters of agricultural 
products. That is great.
  But the problem we have with our trade negotiators is they go sit at 
the table to negotiate trade and say, we want to sell more corn or 
wheat to your country, but do not sell us any sugar. We are hurting 
ourselves opening up markets for the grains and other products that we 
do manufacture so efficiently and produce in this country so 
efficiently, because we have to defend sugar. That is the reason those 
former Agriculture Secretaries say get rid of the program; we cannot 
negotiate more markets for our agricultural products when the one 
product we have to defend is sugar.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been 
characterized as the M&M amendment. M&M is a good candy. Mantle and 
Maris were a good team from the New York Yankees.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to another Yankee 
who hits a lot of home runs, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to be associated with the 
second best team in New York. It is also my pleasure to join with two-
thirds of the People-Named-Miller caucus here in Congress, actually 
over two-thirds, because the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) is a pretty big fellow.
  I have to say to my colleagues, I support agriculture programs. I 
voted for every agriculture bill, and I believe it is very important 
for coalitions to be formed in this body between urban Members, who 
probably are only consuming agriculture product, and their rural 
counterparts, because it is an important part of the stream. But just 
as my colleagues on all sides of the aisle have demanded accountability 
from urban programs, I think it is fair that we demand the same 
accountability here.

[[Page 18857]]

  This amendment does not seek to end the program, simply to amend the 
program. I have to tell Members that I do not mind the fact that is a 
$465 million program.

                              {time}  1830

  That, to me, is not offensive. What is offensive is the additional 
cost to the taxpayers that are hidden.
  The gentleman from Florida just talked about the $1.9 billion 
annually that consumers pay for this program. That is putting aside the 
$1.4 million a month to store the sugar that is purchased and then held 
in essentially escrow to be paid back against the debts as part of this 
program.
  But I have to say that one of the things that leads me to be so 
strongly in favor of the Miller and Miller amendment is the experience 
of the Madeline Chocolate Novelties Company in Rockaway, New York in my 
district. It is not a mammoth company by any stretch of the 
imagination. They employ about 500 people. But the reason they do not 
employ more people, they say, is their inability to export more of 
their products. They do not manufacture chocolate, they create novelty 
chocolate products like the kind we customarily would get at Easter and 
in my district at Passover. But they estimate there is about a 10 
percent difference in the price of the chocolate that they buy because 
of this program and this program alone. They travel around to 
international trade shows, they contact me for help with international 
export programs.
  The fact of the matter is this program and this program alone has 
meant jobs in my district.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself 10 seconds to comment 
on the GAO report. If we look at page 55 where they conclude the 
validity of the report, it says, ``The results are, therefore, suspect 
and should not be quoted authoritatively.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Sugar is an essential and even strategic ingredient in our Nation's 
food supply, yet we are the fourth largest importer of sugar in the 
world. The United States sugar industry is in trouble. I know firsthand 
because I represent thousands of family farmers and factory workers who 
grow and process sugar beets in Michigan. Sugar prices have plummeted 
over the past 2 years, and family farmers are facing a monumental 
challenge.
  Almost half of the remaining sugar beet factories in the United 
States are currently for sale, for sale to the farmers who grow sugar 
beets. Given the depressed sugar market and the overall agricultural 
economy, our family farmers cannot form farmer-owned cooperatives. This 
is an industry that is the very backbone of the rural economy. We must 
not and cannot let it collapse.
  The Miller amendment will end any opportunity for these farmers and 
factory workers to be reliable and competitive suppliers to America's 
consumers. The Miller amendment will cut the supply lines of an 
essential ingredient and deliver another economic blow to America's 
struggling rural economy.
  Vote against the Miller amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It is 
kind of hard for me to understand why we keep having this debate every 
year, because there is really no reason for it.
  I represent an area where, along with the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy), we produce the most sugar in our region of anyplace in 
the country. Small farmers, 200, 300 acres in sugar beets. It has been 
the one crop that is making us a little bit of money, although that is 
getting thinner and thinner every year.
  One of the reasons, frankly, is because of all of the free traders 
that created this problem, because of these trade agreements. If my 
colleagues think that this world market or this so-called price is a 
real price, you got another thing to consider. It is a dump price. You 
need to get out in some other parts of the world and find out what is 
going on.
  I had a chance to go to Romania and they are next, of course, to 
Western Europe. The Europeans have a 50 percent higher price support on 
beets or on sugar than we do. So what happened? The World Bank went in 
there, Romania needed money, and they said, we will give you the money 
if you get rid of your agriculture subsidies. They did. Romania had 
12,000 sugar beet farmers. Today they have zero. They had 36 plants; 
today they have 11. The Europeans own those plants and the Europeans 
ship every bit of sugar into Romania to be processed in those plants, 
and nothing is being produced in Romania.
  That is what is going to happen in the United States if we pass this 
amendment and we get rid of the sugar program. Do not kid yourselves. 
This is not a level playing field, this is not a fair deal, and we will 
turn this industry over to other countries and put our people out of 
business. It makes zero sense. Defeat this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman 
from Ohio, let me make a couple of comments, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  The sugar program is not being eliminated. Under the Miller-Miller 
amendment, the sugar program will be here 10 years from today just like 
it is now. All we are talking about doing is lowering the price from 18 
cents to 17 cents; one penny, 6 percent change. The world price, as of 
October 2, if we look in the Wall Street Journal or any of the 
financial pages, is 6\1/2\ cents. Now, I agree; that probably is a dump 
price, and I would not want that price in the United States. But we are 
only talking about 18 cents down to 17 cents.
  We do have requirements and other laws on the books, and I fully 
support them, to keep subsidized products from coming into the United 
States. France subsidizes their sugar production. And we should not 
allow France to sell sugar to the United States, and they do not. So if 
there is a company that subsidizes it, we keep them out.
  One of the largest sugar producers in the world is Australia. They 
have a free market on sugar. They sell it around the world for 6.5 
cents. Of course, when they sell it to the United States, we pay them 
18 cents. That is even the dumber part of the program.
  So the fact is there is a dump price that I agree is like 6.5 cents, 
but all we are talking about is going to 17 cents.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. 
American consumers essentially are being ripped off and the time has 
come for Congress to finally do something about it.
  The sugar program guarantees domestic cane sugar and beet sugar 
producers a minimum price for sugar which, at times, during the past 
year was about three times the world market price. The sugar program 
supports domestic sugar prices by offering loans to sugar producers at 
a rate established by law, 18 cents per pound for raw cane sugar, 22.9 
cents per pound for refined beet sugar, with sugar serving as 
collateral for these loans. The sugar program keeps the price of sugar 
artificially inflated and above the world market price.
  In 1998, the General Accounting Office found that the Federal sugar 
program cost American consumers more than $1.9 billion, almost $2 
billion, up from $500 million from the $1.4 billion inflated cost cited 
in a similar 1993 GAO study.
  It is time for Congress to eliminate this particularly egregious form 
of corporate welfare for the sugar-producing industry. American 
consumers essentially get hit twice. Their hard-earned tax dollars are 
being used to fund a wasteful program, which, in turn, results in 
artificially higher prices of sugar and sugar products on the grocery 
self. Any way we look at it, it is bad business. Their tax dollars are 
being wasted, and then they are paying higher prices at the grocers, so 
they get hit twice.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.

[[Page 18858]]


  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Instead of the Buy America Act, you could call this the Buy Anything 
But America Act subjecting us to dumped sugar. Instead of Correct the 
Trade Balance Act, you could say Compound the Trade Balance Act. That 
is what Miller-Miller is all about. It takes the one commodity where we 
actually consume more than we grow and wants to throw it open to world-
dumped sugar shorting our markets.
  Instead of a stimulus package, you could call this amendment the 
recession package, because it would surely bring recession to those 
areas producing sugar. That is 420,000 U.S. jobs, contributing $26.2 
billion in the economy.
  They call it a consumer bill; actually, it is a candy bar 
manufacturing bill. We have seen a 30 percent drop in the price for 
refined beet sugar. Have you seen cheaper candy bars? Absolutely not. 
This is about candy bar manufacturer profit line, not about a deal for 
consumers.
  We have a program that works. We have a program that has available 
sugar at below the price available in the developed countries. We have 
price stability for this essential component for groceries. We need to 
keep the sugar program and defeat the Miller-Miller amendment.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say, a penny for your thoughts. It 
seems like this program, this one commodity is always singled out on 
this House floor as some egregious program.
  Now, if we tied the Miller-Miller amendment to the price of candy and 
forced them to reduce their prices for every penny we reduce the sugar 
product, then maybe I would understand there is a rationale behind this 
argument.
  Now, I associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings), my good friend, who talks about families in his 
district. Now, some use this program and attack certain families that 
may be successful and they hold them up as examples of corporate waste. 
Well, folks, we can use that in almost anything we do on this House 
floor: single out one individual and say that is the bad actor or the 
bad apple. We ignore the fact that there are thousands of people in my 
district.
  Now, I know when you hear Mark Foley's name, you think of Palm Beach 
and Worth Avenue. But let me take you to Belle Glade, Clewiston, 
Pahokee, Canal Point, where people get up every morning and go to the 
farms and work hard 5, 6 in the morning to harvest a crop that is 
difficult and is burdensome, but they bring it to market. Then all of a 
sudden they turn on their TV set to the government that they pay taxes 
for and to and hear people demeaning their way of life, their product 
that they produce, and act like somehow, we have some communistic 
cartel operating under the auspices of the Federal Government.
  Now, I take exception. I invite you to come to my communities; and I 
invite you to meet the farmers, those individual farmers who farm 100 
acres, 50 acres, 20 acres, to try to make a living for themselves and 
their families.
  Please defeat this amendment and let us get this over with. We have 
done this for 7 years, and 7 years we have beaten them back. Help us do 
it again.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Look, this is our annual fight. We are all used to it. It is a fight 
between special interests, on one side the candy manufacturers, and on 
the other side the farmers of America and the countries that we support 
in other parts of the world. I think when one has a choice, go with the 
farmers. They are the ones that are farming the land and harvesting the 
product. In fact, when we buy the sugar at our price, we are also 
helping, our neighboring countries; we are helping the people of El 
Salvador who suffered from Hurricane Mitch. We are helping the other 
Central American countries, and our friends in the Caribbean, because 
we pay a much better price than the world market, and we allow these 
countries then to get a better sugar price and pass that on to their 
workers. We also help some African nations by importing their sugar.
  If you vote against this amendment, you are not only helping the 
farmers of America, you are helping the foreign farmers that our 
foreign aid programs are also trying to help in a much better way than 
just doling out money.
  This is an amendment that we argue against every year, and it should 
be continually defeated.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mark 
Twain said there are lies, there are damn lines, and then there are 
statistics. It has been interesting to listen to the debate. We have 
heard a lot of statistics, and I am going to share some of my own. I am 
one of the few Members that serves on both the Committee on Agriculture 
as well as the Committee on the Budget. We have heard this term 
``subsidy'' thrown around so freely here tonight as we talk the sugar 
program.
  I would like to just read from the Economic Research Service put out 
by the USDA, their latest report, the Agriculture Outlook, September 
2001. This is what the sugar program costs in 1993. We had a net profit 
to the Federal taxpayers of $35 million. In 1994, we had a net profit 
of $24 million. In 1995, the taxpayers made $3 million. In 1996, it was 
$63 million; and the next year, it was $34 million. The next year, we 
made a profit of $30 million. In 1999, we made $51 million. It is true 
in fiscal year 2000 it cost the Federal taxpayers $465 million.
  Now, that was not the fault of the sugar beet growers or the sugar 
cane growers, it was not the fault of the farmers in the United States, 
it was the fault of failed trade policies.

                              {time}  1845

  It was the fault of the Federal Government of not doing its job of 
policing the system.
  Do not blame the farmers for our failures by the bureaucrats here in 
Washington. That is what this amendment is all about. This has been a 
very successful program. We are a net importer of sugar. We need the 
sugar industry. We need predictable prices.
  Defeat the Miller-Miller amendment. Let us vote for the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been taking a couple of notes here today. We 
talk about the sugar program; but Mr. Chairman, we are really talking 
about people, because sugar is people. Yes, there are differences that 
we have with one another, but I hardly think it is worth anything to 
characterize each other or our positions in such apocalyptic terms. I 
think it makes more sense to try and think: What is it that we want to 
accomplish?
  The proponents say that there are trade barriers, but what we are 
really talking about here is whether or not we want to benefit from the 
importation of slave-driven wages in the rest of the world that 
provides this so-called cheap sugar. Why should we apologize, whether 
it is in Florida or whether it is in Hawaii, because our workers are 
the best-paid agricultural workers who produce the most?
  The way I learned this economics that I am always being preached to 
about is that if one works hard and is the best producer and is the 
most efficient, one is supposed to be rewarded, not castigated. Yet, 
that is what this would do.
  Let us remember what this particular amendment is all about. It is

[[Page 18859]]

not about the program as such, it is to lower the price 1 cent. I can 
tell the Members, if they lower the price 1 cent, they will drive the 
producers out of business because their margin of profit, which the 
proponents said was only 5 percent, this is just lowering it 5 percent. 
So if we lower it 5 percent, we are going to drive these folks out of 
business because their margin of profit is not anything like the candy 
manufacturers.
  If the workers in Illinois or anyplace were going to get the benefit 
of this, I could see, okay, let us work on this. But they are not. It 
is just going to be for the profit that is being taken.
  So I want to indicate to the Members that we do not just have to look 
to the free sugar in the restaurants that is out there, but I ask 
Members to do this. In my right hand is a Diet Coke. In my left hand is 
a Coca-Cola Classic. Now, I got this from the cloakroom on the 
Democratic side of the aisle; and I guarantee Members, if I go to the 
cloakroom on the Republican side of the aisle, both of these cans of 
Coca-Cola cost the same amount of money. One has the sugar in it and 
one does not have the sugar in it, and they are taking the money, the 
same price for both cans of Coca-Cola, and they are taking the American 
public the same way.
  Mr. Chairman, I return the rest of my time and rest my case.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the 
gentleman, no sugar is in soft drinks in the United States. The price 
of sugar is so expensive that we use corn syrup. Sugar is not used in 
the products in the United States; it was driven away from the market.
  The more we put up the price of sugar, the less uses we will find. We 
will find an alternative. That is the reason corn syrup has been used 
as a substitute for soft drinks, so we will not find that in soft 
drinks, sadly, in the United States. It is used in the other countries 
in the world where they have a free market in sugar.
  We keep referring to candy. That is just one of the uses for sugar, 
and they use a lot of it. It is in so many different products we use. I 
have a colleague who has a company that produces medicine. They have 
cough drops. Cough drops have a lot of sugar in them. This company 
manufactures them in England because they cannot bring them to the 
United States for production because of the cost of sugar, they say.
  My colleagues started to discredit the General Accounting Office: 
``Why are we paying them $400 million to do all these studies?'' In the 
case of this one, that is the $1.9 billion. That is the most 
authoritative source we have. They contracted out a lot of this work 
with a professor from the Department of Agriculture, one from Iowa 
State University, a professor from the University of Maryland, a former 
assistant professor of economics at USDA, a number of other professors 
from the University of Florida, from the University of California, 
Davis, from North Carolina State University. They all participated in 
this study that came up with the $1.9 billion number.
  The Department of Agriculture would not participate in this, did not 
want to get involved in it, and they want to discredit it, which is 
really sad. But of course, we have to remember, the Department of 
Agriculture has hundreds of people over there trying to manage this 
program, and it is a jobs program there. So what we are doing is the 
cost, which is no net cost, even though we have to buy and store all 
this sugar, we have hundreds of employees that have to kind of maintain 
this program and manage the imports allowed in this program.
  So yes, it is a $1.9 billion cost to all the consumers of America, 
and consumers are taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I know we do not pay much attention to Secretaries, 
former Secretaries, newspapers, and all of those things; but I just 
happened to be looking. I saw where Jack Block, 1981 to 1986, Secretary 
of Agriculture; Clayton Yetter, 1989 to 1991, Secretary of Agriculture; 
Dan Glickman, 1995 to 2001; the Boston Herald; The Baltimore Sun; USA 
Today; Crain's Chicago Business Newsroom; the Sun Sentinel; The Miami 
Herald; and the current Secretary of Agriculture have all expressed 
concern about the subsidies.
  One of the papers suggested that of all of the subsidies, the sugar 
subsidy is the worst. As a matter of fact, it says, ``Who benefits?'' 
That is in USA Today. ``A handful of sugar growers and processors--and 
the politicians whose campaigns they fund to the tune of $1.5 million a 
year.''
  It says, ``The sugar crowd is small but generous.''
  Then The Baltimore Sun says that Domino has lost money for 9 months 
because they paid just about the same for raw sugar that they end up 
selling the processed sugar for. Therefore, they are not making a 
profit.
  The Boston Herald said ``It would be better to kill this outrageous 
giveaway program. But the Miller-Miller amendment may be the only 
reform effort on the table. It deserves the support of all New England 
representatives.'' But I would go further than that, and I would say 
that it deserves the support of all Representatives, because once 
again, when it was in vogue, when it was needed, we needed it then.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are going to discredit any Government 
employees. I yield myself 10 seconds to quote the career USDA analyst 
used in describing the GAO report: ``. . . naive, inconsistent, 
inadequate, a puzzlement, inflammatory, unprofessional, not well 
documented, incomplete, and unrealistic.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I was just going to quote the same language the USDA 
used in describing the GAO report.
  I agree with what my friend said earlier, the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Osborne), when he said ``I do not understand why the sugar beet 
growers in Idaho and Nebraska and other States ought to be paying for 
the restoration of the Florida Everglades,'' as much as I like the 
Florida Everglades.
  But let me talk for just a minute if I can about Bob's Candies, 
because Bob's has been mentioned several time here. Bob's came and 
testified before our committee. They said they had to build a plant in 
Mexico because they could get sugar cheaper there than they could get 
it in the United States. They could not compete here in the United 
States.
  I found that ironic because the retail price of sugar in Mexico is 
more expensive than it is in the United States. So I thought, there 
must be some other reason that they are going to Mexico, labor costs or 
something else.
  But then he explained it to me. He said that in Mexico, the Mexican 
government will allow them to buy the world dump price of sugar, make 
the candy, and then export it to the United States; but they cannot 
sell that candy that is made with dump price sugar in Mexico. Do 
Members not find that rather ironic?
  Mr. Chairman, there is not a free market out there in sugar. I am 
unwilling to sacrifice our farmers, our sugar producers, on the alter 
of free enterprise when there is no free market in sugar. Maybe if we 
had a free market, we could look at competition that really works.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the 
chairman one more time for the great job they have done on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing about farmers all day on this 
floor. I have heard enough bad information to make me want to dip a 
snuff.
  All day we have been hearing about how bad large farmers are. Now we 
are hearing that not only large farmers are

[[Page 18860]]

bad, but small farmers are bad if they produce sugar, and if they 
produce sugar in South Florida, they are absolutely terrible.
  The fact is, American sugar farmers are just like every other farmers 
in America. They do a great job. They know what they are doing. They 
are the most efficient that there is.
  We cannot support replacing efficient American farmers with 
subsidized foreign sugar. The gentleman from Idaho that preceded me is 
absolutely right, there is no such thing as a free market in sugar. 
That is an idea that will never occur in my lifetime, and very likely 
not in the next 200 years. It is the most political commodity that 
there is on the planet.
  The American people get a good deal for their sugar program. They pay 
20 percent less for sugar than consumers in most other developed 
countries. In terms of minutes of work to buy one pound of sugar, our 
sugar is about the most affordable in the entire world. The retail 
price of sugar has risen less than two pennies per pound over the past 
10 years. It would be foolish for us to force the production of sugar 
from this country offshore in an effort to just do more damage to 
American agriculture.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been farm day on the floor of the United 
States Congress, a topic that we do not discuss enough.
  But in particular, it has been ironic that we have had people from 
different regions of this country try to pit one commodity against 
another; that we have had people who may have supported the previous 
amendment in the name of small farms come down here to try to put small 
farms and small farmers out of business.
  There are a lot of small farmers who grow sugar in Florida and around 
the country. I know them. I have met them. I have walked on their land. 
I have heard their problems.
  For us to trade away their jobs to a Third World country that uses 
labor practices that have been banned here for a century, chemicals 
that have been banned here for decades, to put on our food to ship to 
our children and our public at the expense of our industry and our jobs 
is obscene.
  There has been a lot made of the environmental impacts. I know an 
awful lot about that. I helped write the Everglades restudy bill in the 
Florida legislature. The Florida sugar industry has reduced their 
pollutants by 73 percent, three times what the law asked them to do, 
and ahead of schedule. Nobody else has done that, not the national 
parks, not the tribes, not the water management districts, and 
certainly not the City of Miami, the City of Fort Lauderdale, Dade 
County, Broward County, and all of the other folks who are a part of 
that larger problem.
  The sugar industry is doing their part to be a good citizen, to be 
good stewards of the land. I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, the rarest of all beasts came to this floor 
completely undecided on this bill. I submitted a bill in the last 
Congress to completely eliminate price supports for sugar, but after 
careful consideration about this, well, I think of two kids, my son who 
goes into the store and always asks for candy. A Mars bar costs 75 
cents in the District of Columbia. It costs 50 cents in Oregon. A 5-
pound bag of sugar costs $2.19 here in the District and $2.25 back home 
in Oregon. I just do not think that those savings will be passed on to 
my son.
  I guess I just think of these little kids I have seen in Fiji working 
in those cane fields and they are never going to have a chance to have 
a better life unless we have a viable sugar industry here in America.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, but I am struck by 
this extraordinary doctrine we have of the exceptionalism of 
agriculture, because Members who are ardent supporters of free 
enterprise and keeping our markets free and keeping the government out 
of the markets, and not subsidizing and not regulating apparently, have 
read all of those economics books better than I, and they have found 
the secret footnote that says none of this applies to agriculture.
  Now we have a new element in the doctrine of agricultural 
exceptionalism. Member after Member has gotten up and said we must 
protect American workers from the unfair and degrading conditions 
overseas. Let us see how they vote on Fast Track, Mr. Chairman.
  We are about to get legislation that will be the grandparent of 
enabling competition of precisely the sort that Members have been here 
denouncing. I will be noticing how many Members who have invoked the 
unfairness of international competition unregulated to justify the 
sugar program. I will be looking to see how many of them will find that 
that was really just an exception and they will vote to, in fact, to 
subject the whole rest of the American economy to precisely what they 
have been deploring.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if we want to look at something, look at 
how often we bemoan the fact that we are so dependent upon an oil 
cartel to supply 60 percent of the oil that is critical to this 
Nation's energy supplies. Then I want us to think about the fact that 
the international sugar cartel is a lot smaller than the international 
oil cartel, much smaller. This amendment plays right into their hands.
  This amendment drives further farmers out of business in Louisiana 
and across this country and makes room for the foreign cartel to dump 
its cheap sugar into America.
  When do they do it? They do it after they have sold all the sugar 
they can sell and they dump what is left, the surplus, at below cost 
rates into this country to kill off our farmers. What happens as a 
result? Our farmers are gone in Louisiana. My dad drove a cane truck. I 
know them very intimately. I know these small farmers and how hard they 
work. They are out of business and all of a sudden we are dependent 
now, not just for oil, but we are dependent for sugar, too, on a cartel 
out there. Would that not be great?
  This amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is 
particularly pernicious this year. It not only taxes the sugar farmers 
out of existence, but then it makes sure they will have to forfeit 
their sugar by taking away the program that saves us from government 
forfeitures. What a nasty amendment. This thing needs to be defeated.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to commend and congratulate the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller) for crafting this amendment. I also want to commend the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture for putting 
together a comprehensive package that speaks in many ways to the 
agricultural needs of our country.
  But the sugar subsidy, in contrast to all of the other farm 
subsidies, the sugar program imposes most of its costs on consumers, 
not taxpayers. The sugar program in reality is a food tax, because all 
of the food items that we purchase that use sugar, because of the 
inflated cost, it means that we are paying more. The Miller-Miller 
amendment does not wipe out the subsidy. It simply seeks to reduce it, 
to put it down to a level that does not hurt the consumer, does not 
hurt the workers and does not hurt American manufacturers.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of us to look carefully and look 
hard and know that when we vote for Miller-Miller, we are doing the 
right thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 18861]]


  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just quickly a few comments. Earlier we had comments about the 17 
sugar growers. I would refer every one of my colleagues to the current 
edition of the Forbes Magazine to see the 400 richest people in the 
world and look at how many have done very well in the sugar industry in 
the United States. Take a look at the CEO salaries of Coalition for 
Sugar Reform. I cannot believe some Members have the gall to come here 
and to complain about the sugar industry in the United States.
  We have 400,000 jobs on the line. There are 400,000 producers. If 
this amendment passes, they will go out of business in the United 
States because we cannot lower the prices anymore to producers in the 
United States and stay in business. That is the given fact of this 
amendment.
  We talk about the consumer, American consumers have got the best 
bargain in the world with the exception of Canada and Australia. Canada 
and Australia consumers get a better deal at the sugar counter than we 
do. But take a look at the advantage that Australia and Canada have in 
the value of the dollar. When we talk about the free market and the 
free enterprise system, if we are having to compete, whether it is in 
sugar or airplanes or whatever we are in, if we have to compete, in 
this case with sugar, and Canada being the largest importer of sugar 
into the United States, they have roughly a 50 percent advantage. That 
means where our growers are getting rounded off 20 cents, they are not, 
it is less than that, the Canadian sugar grower gets 30 cents just 
because the value of the dollar.
  We cannot compete with that. Take a look at the facts. Wholesale 
prices of sugar have dropped by 30 percent since 1990 to 2000. Since 
1996, a 28 percent drop. But has any product that uses sugar dropped? 
The answer is no. The price of everything that uses sugar goes up. We 
have been through this argument every year, every year. We seem to have 
a dedicated agenda on the part of some who use agricultural products, 
that the only way to benefit the consumer is to drive our producers out 
of business. I respectfully disagree with that.
  Take a look at the bill we have. We recognize we have a surplus of 
sugar. We recognize the current program has not worked and we change 
it. But we do not change it in a manner in which we destroy the 
producers in the United States. We manage to continue to be able to 
have, well, not a level playing field, but at least give them a chance. 
If the Miller-Miller amendment passes, producers in America will have 
no chance. Vote against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The Miller-Miller amendment is just a modest change in the sugar 
program. We are not trying to eliminate it like we debated back in 
1996, and that is really what I wish we would eliminate, but we are 
only talking about a one-penny change, dropping the price by about 5 
percent.
  Now, I have my colleagues talk about, oh, the consumers do not ever 
gain from this, and I keep referring to this GAO report. Let us also 
look at all the organizations that support the Miller-Miller amendment.
  What consumer agreement supports the sugar program? None. The 
Consumer Federation of America supports the amendment. The Consumers 
for World Trade support the Miller-Miller amendment, and Consumers 
Union supports the Miller-Miller amendment. They support it because the 
consumers are the one that get the bad deal off the sugar program.
  Let me also talk about some of the other organizations, and many of 
them are going to be rating this vote, that is, scoring it and saying 
how important the vote is to them. For business groups, we have a lot 
of the users of it and good government groups. We have Citizens Against 
Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, 
Citizens for a Sound Economy, Taxpayers for Common Sense.
  Environmental, people say, oh, it really does not hurt the 
environment. Why do National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, The League 
of Conservation Voters, Everglades Trust, Friends of the Earth, World 
Wildlife Fund all support this amendment?
  As I said earlier, three former Secretaries of Agriculture, one 
Democrat, a former colleague of ours, Dan Glickman under President 
Clinton, again, Secretary Clayton Yuetter under President Bush, and 
Secretary Jack Block under President Ronald Reagan, all signed a letter 
concluding, and let me read a couple of quotes of it. Whatever its 
merits in the past, the sugar program in its present form no longer 
serves its intended public policy goal. It should be reformed.
  They go on, there appears to be no reasonable way to sustain the 
present sugar program. Defending this import restrictive program is 
increasing the untenable for our trade negotiators. This conflict harms 
the interest of other farmers, ranchers and processes. Reform of the 
sugar program is long overdue, and they encourage the support for the 
changes outlined in this amendment.
  This is a simple, common sense, reasonable and modest amendment. We 
have not had a full debate on this issue since 1996. We were promised 
things in 1996 like, oh, it will not cost us anything, and then last 
year we bought the $465 million worth of sugar. Are we supposed to 
believe it is not going to cost us again when in the year 2000, we 
bought $465 million worth of sugar and we are a million and a half 
dollars a month just to store sugar we do not even know what to do 
with? So come on, it is going to cost us because it cost us last year.
  We are overproducing sugar, and we need to bring some reasonable 
common sense to this. So I encourage my colleagues to support the 
Miller-Miller amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The proponents of the M and M amendment, when they talk about sending 
jobs to Mexico, have the right string but they have the wrong yo-yo. It 
is not the sugar program that is causing the job loss to Mexico. This 
is what is causing those losses.
  American wages are 25 times higher here than they are in Mexico. 
American energy costs are five times higher than they are in Mexico. 
American tax burden is at least seven times higher. American protection 
for workers and the environment, water and air quality is much higher 
than it is in Mexico. Those are the reasons that we are losing jobs to 
Mexico, not the sugar program.
  Defeat the M and M amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am one of a few Republicans in Congress 
who represent an urban area, yet when it came time to end the broken 
system of social welfare, I voted for it and I'm proud to say that 
welfare reform has been a tremendous success in my district and across 
the nation.
  We did the heavy lifting in 1996. Now it's time we got the rich 
farmers off welfare. There aren't a whole lot of farmers who are much 
better off than the sugar producers who've made a living--no, a 
killing!--off of government subsidies and production controls.
  I think Karl Marx, even on a sugar high, couldn't have come up with 
anything as market-distorting and anti-competitive as the sugar program 
in this Farm bill. This legislation rolls back the modest reforms of 
1996 by reimposing federal limits on how much sugar can be grown and 
sold in the United States. I can't think of a single other crops where 
we do this.
  To truly appreciate this government hand-out, consider that last year 
the federal government spent nearly half a billion dollars to buy one 
million tons of surplus sugar. The government continues to spend $1.4 
million a month to store it and the Department of Agriculture estimates 
the program will cost taxpayers at least $1.6 billion over the 10-year 
life of the Farm Bill.
  This sugar program is one of the sweetest deals in America--but only 
if you're one of the

[[Page 18862]]

lucky few. You don't hear much about the family farm during debate on 
this amendment, because the largest 1 percent of sugar growers claim 40 
percent of the program's benefits.
  But if my colleagues don't care about taxpayers' dollars or family 
farms, perhaps they'll care about our environment. The government's 
subsidies of the sugar industry are extremely harmful to the Florida 
Everglades. I hope everyone recognizes the irony here. Even as we spend 
billions of dollars on repairing the Everglades, we're spending 
billions more to subsidize a sugar industry that is responsible for so 
much of the damage to this area.
  Mr. Chairman, if we can't repeal it, let's at least restore some 
sanity to one of the government's worst programs. This is a very modest 
amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Miller/Miller Amendment.
  The Miller/Miller Amendment is an attempt to destroy what remains of 
sugar production in the state of Texas and throughout the nation. In 
order to understand the damage that the Miller/Miller Amendment may 
cause, it is important to understand the purpose of the U.S. Sugar 
policy.
  First, Mr. Speaker, our U.S. Sugar policy ensures that foreign 
predatory trade practices--such as export subsidies, marketing 
monopolies and cartels, high internal supports, and high import 
barriers--do not drive efficient American sugar farmers out of business 
and threaten the reliability and stability to American consumers.
  Also, U.S. sugar policy ensures that jobs in rural America are not 
sent over seas, and that American consumers are not held captive by 
unreliable foreign suppliers of subsidized sugar.
  Governments of all foreign sugar-producing countries intervene in 
their production, consumption and or trade of sugar, which makes sugar 
one of the most heavily subsidized and distorted markets in the world.
  The Miller/Miller Amendment is an attempt to give our foreign 
competitors an advantage that they have not deserved. We should leave 
our current sugar policy intact until other countries make substantial 
changes in the subsidies that they provide to their sugar producers. 
The U.S. sugar policy saves jobs and keeps Americans working--in this 
economy we should do no less.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support today of 
the Miller-Miller amendment to reform the sugar subsidy program. I want 
to commend both gentlemen for their tireless efforts to reform this 
program, which has been a raw deal for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not eliminate the sugar subsidy 
program, which I admit I would wholeheartedly support. It does, 
however, take the modest step of providing some reforms to the existing 
program in an attempt to eliminate the waste and abuse associated with 
it. Further, this amendment would prevent any new sugar bailout 
programs from being created.
  Last year, the government spent $465 million to buy a million tons of 
sugar, and then spent an additional $1.4 million a month to store it. 
That is money that could well have been spent on our nation's critical 
needs, such as providing education to children with disabilities or 
medical care to our veterans, or to develop next-generation weapons 
needed by our men and women in uniform.
  Instead, as a result of the current sugar subsidy program, we 
provided a sweet deal for a small number of sugar growers. The existing 
program pays out 40 percent of Federal subsidies to a select 1 percent 
of the nation's sugar growers.
  Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen ably and concisely summarized the 
current sugar subsidy program in his August 29, 2001 column. ``Sure, 
it's corporate welfare,'' he said. ``Sure, it's freeloading. Sure it 
jacks up consumer prices.'' And, surely, I'd add, it's time to stop 
taxpayers from getting a raw deal, and fix this broken program.
  I strongly support the Miller-Miller amendment, and encourage my 
colleagues to do the same. The farm bill is a sweet deal for most of 
our farmers; let's at least put an end to this expensive, unnecessary 
bailout program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 239, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 367]

                               AYES--177

     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clement
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Ney
     Northup
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--239

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns

[[Page 18863]]


     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Burton
     Callahan
     Dicks
     Gibbons
     Hansen
     Houghton
     Istook
     LaFalce
     Millender-McDonald
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Serrano
     Visclosky
     Wexler

                              {time}  1935

  Messrs. HUNTER, McDERMOTT, HAYES, FATTAH, and KUCINICH changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HART, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. HEFLEY, and Mr. MOORE changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 367, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 367, I was 
detained in a traffic accident. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Committee 
will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________