[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20842-20886]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2419.

                              {time}  1942


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs 
through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Tauscher in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, today we have a bill 
before us that is known as the farm bill, but this bill is much more 
than about farms. It is about the food we eat, the clothes we wear, 
and, increasingly, the fuel that we will use.
  The farm bill assures that we will have a safe, strong food supply 
now and for years to come. It funds nutrition programs and ensures that 
working families have enough to eat. It provides conservation programs 
to protect the environment. It funds rural development programs in 
support of our rural communities nationwide. You can see that this farm 
bill is certainly about more than just farms.
  In addition to these important priorities, this farm bill also 
provides the safety net that allows our Nation's farmers and ranchers 
to continue to

[[Page 20843]]

provide the food, fiber, and fuel that meet the needs of Americans and 
people around the world.
  America is still the world's breadbasket, and that is something we 
should be proud of. Over the past year, my colleagues and I have 
traveled across the country from New York to Alabama, to my neck of the 
woods in Minnesota, and all the way to California. We heard from folks 
who are out there every day working the land, producing a diverse range 
of agriculture products.
  The farm bill is a product of agreements that we have reached by 
consulting everyone interested in this process. In addition to hearings 
across the country, we have worked with nutrition advocates, 
conservation and environmental organizations, renewable energy groups, 
and representatives from all parts of the fruit and vegetable industry, 
in addition to the farm groups traditionally involved in the farm bill.
  At the end of that process, we now have more than 100 organizations 
representing conservation, nutrition, rural development, renewable 
energy, labor and farm groups that have signed on in support of this 
bill. I think that this unprecedented support is a direct result of our 
efforts to be inclusive in this farm bill process.
  There are very few issues that the National Farmers Union and the 
American Farm Bureau Federation can agree on, but at the end of the 
day, they both support this bill.
  The members of these groups who support our farm bill are the real 
experts on farm policy because it is a reality that they live each day 
of their lives. They are the ones on the land planting the crops, 
managing the livestock and taking the risk inherent in the industry of 
farming. They are the ones who represent the people using the farm 
bill's nutrition programs. They are the ones working to implement good 
conservation practices in the communities across this country. If they 
support our bill, then I know that we're doing the right thing.
  This farm bill also includes significant reforms. Of course, some 
people think we went too far. Others think we didn't go far enough. But 
everybody seems to agree that they never thought that we could get an 
agreement that went as far as it has. That is what this farm bill is 
about. We got the different groups into the room and produced an 
agreement that everyone feels like they've been part of the process, 
even if they didn't get exactly what they wanted.
  This bill does make significant changes, including a hard cap on 
subsidies for the first time ever. We've taken the $2.5 million 
adjusted gross income cap down to $500,000. And we have put a hard cap 
on of $1 million so that anybody over $1 million of adjusted gross 
income will not receive farm payments after this bill passes.
  We have also cut the soft cap that I mentioned on adjusted gross 
income to $500,000. We also, in this bill, required direct attribution 
for the first time of farm program payments so that people won't be 
able to get around the payment limits by receiving payments through 
different business entities. These are not insignificant by any means, 
and these changes will affect thousands of farmers nationwide.
  In the area of conservation, too, we have made significant changes as 
well as new investments. One thing we've done, we have included the 
same kind of payment limits on conservation programs that we have had 
for farm programs. That way, there's more money available to more 
farmers to participate in these popular programs.
  The bill also includes $3.8 billion in new spending for conservation 
programs over the next 5 years. These programs help farmers protect the 
environment with programs that reduce erosion, enhance water supply, 
improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat, and reduce damage 
caused by floods and other natural disasters.
  This farm bill provides new resources to protect and preserve the 
Chesapeake Bay and other high-priority areas, and it encourages private 
land owners to provide public access for hunting, fishing and other 
recreational activities.
  In the area of renewable energy, this farm bill invests in programs 
that will help encourage the development of cellulosic ethanol in this 
country. In my opinion, this represents the future for American 
agriculture. Once we can establish the first facilities that can make 
ethanol from agricultural waste and other biomass products, we will 
take a huge step in a new direction for agriculture and for rural 
America.
  Many of the best feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol will also provide 
benefits for wildlife and for the environment. Renewable fuels have 
brought new investment and new jobs for rural America, and this is one 
of the most exciting things that's happened in my life and in American 
agriculture.
  We have also proposed increases in the farm bill's nutrition title. 
This has been a source of some controversy this week, but not because 
people disagree with the idea that we should be increasing these 
benefits which have been stagnant for many years and making sure that 
benefits keep pace with inflation,
  Instead, the controversy has involved the proposal that the Ways and 
Means Committee has proposed to offset the cost of these changes. I 
hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that 
there is a difference between closing a loophole in current tax law and 
increasing taxes. This proposal won't raise taxes, but it will hold 
some foreign companies who should be paying taxes accountable for what 
they owe.
  The Agriculture Committee agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that these 
changes in the nutrition program were important to help working 
Americans access these nutrition programs, and we have found a 
reasonable, fiscally responsible way to do this.
  Another area where this farm bill makes great strides is in funding 
for programs that strengthen the fruit and vegetable industry. We have 
worked with this industry and have included $1.5 billion in new 
mandatory money for them in this farm bill. That's the first time that 
we've done this.
  The Specialty Crop Alliance, United Fresh, and many other fruit and 
vegetable groups strongly support this bill as passed by the 
Agriculture Committee.
  We also worked with several caucuses in crafting this bill, including 
the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the 
Congressional Native American Caucus. With the Congressional Black 
Caucus, we have worked to address important issues, including a program 
in the manager's amendment that will help black farmers who did not get 
their day in court due to inadequate notice and an arbitrary deadline 
established after the Pigford case was settled. This provision will 
allow farmers who filed their claims after the national deadline to 
have their cases heard.
  We have also included other provisions to make USDA programs more 
accessible to minority, socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers 
and ranchers. This includes provisions to expand access to land, 
credit, conservation and rural development programs.
  One of the most important compromises reached in this farm bill was 
an agreement to finally, after a long delay, implement mandatory 
country of origin labeling. We put both sides in the room; we told them 
to come out with a compromise, and they delivered. As a result, with 
this farm bill, consumers in this country will finally be able to tell 
where their fruit and vegetables and meat products in their grocery 
stores are coming from, and we think it's about time.
  We accomplished all of this under an open process where everyone was 
included. All members of our committee were engaged in this process, 
and I'm proud to say that some of our newest freshman Members, 
including colleagues that have been there for years, really brought a 
lot of constructive ideas and a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the 
table and helped us come up with a bill that we are all very proud of.
  There is something in this bill for everybody to like. There's 
probably something in this bill for everybody not to like. But it's a 
step in the right direction and has broad support, as I

[[Page 20844]]

said, from many organizations. And I encourage my colleagues to support 
this farm bill which supports all of us with food, fiber and fuel.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Chairman, it's a sad day for American agriculture when the 
Democratic leadership pits America's farmers and ranchers against 
America's working class. The tax increases included in this bill stand 
to jeopardize millions of American jobs by raising taxes on companies 
that do business in the U.S. Not only does this provision cunningly 
added by the Democrat leadership after the bill left the control of the 
Agriculture Committee jeopardize American jobs, it stands to violate 
treaties with other nations and lead to significant ramifications for 
U.S. companies with operations in other countries. Worst of all, we're 
not even considering a tax bill; we're considering a farm bill, a farm 
bill that has been twisted into a partisan pawn.
  At the beginning of the week, I stood beside the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee to voice my support for this bill that we had 
worked in a bipartisan fashion to bring to the floor. I had only one 
caveat, that the offsets not be in the form of tax increases. Not 24 
hours before we were to consider this bill on the floor, we were made 
aware of a tax increase provision that had been added to this language 
behind closed doors. Unfortunately, all of the good things contained in 
this bill have been overshadowed by very partisan elements of what 
should be a bipartisan bill. Today we should be debating the merits of 
this bill, a bill that was carefully crafted to meet the calls for 
reform and expand programs such as nutrition and fruits and vegetable 
programs. But the leadership has decided to take American agriculture 
out of the debate on the farm bill.
  Heading into the reauthorization of the farm bill, Agriculture 
Committee Republicans anticipated problems with the budget, given the 
collapse of the baseline projections for the commodity programs. The 
lack of funding for the nutrition interests further compounded the 
problem. As the number of nonfarm interests in farm bill funding has 
grown and the availability of funding dwindled, farm programs have 
become particularly vulnerable, and the Democratic leadership and the 
Budget Committee refused to address the needs of a forward-looking farm 
bill.
  From the start, the Agriculture Committee Republicans have made our 
concerns about funding for this bill very clear. When the chairman 
announced his projected farm bill time line on May 17, I urged him not 
to rush the process and find the offsets before promising the money in 
the farm bill language. Again and again, I, along with my subcommittee 
ranking members, have implored the committee to slow down, to wait 
until the money is available before moving ahead.
  At the Conservation, Credit, Energy and Rural Development 
Subcommittee markup on May 22, both subcommittee ranking member Frank 
Lucas and I urged caution in rushing the process.
  On May 24, at the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry markup, the message 
was the same. The subsequent markups on June 6, 7, 15 and 19, the 
message to the leadership of this committee was the same; slow down and 
find the money. We were consistently told the money would be made 
available, and we were consistently denied any further information.
  It would be disingenuous for my Agriculture Committee Democrat 
colleagues to claim our objections are at all new or recently 
conceived. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion throughout this 
process and had the opportunity to take a bipartisan product of the 
committee to the floor. But our work has been undermined by the 
addition of tax increases without consultation, review or due process 
to cover the extra costs of the bill.
  Despite repeated assurances that the $4 billion in offsets would not 
come from tax increases, here we are, looking at tax increases as a 
funding mechanism of choice employed by the Democratic leadership.
  Moreover, to insinuate that Democrats were made to do anything by the 
Republicans' opposition to revisions that would directly impact U.S. 
jobs is preposterous. The Democrats and the Democrats alone are solely 
responsible for any modifications made to this bill after it left the 
Agriculture Committee.
  Because the Democrat leadership won't invest in American agriculture, 
they're calling for increased taxes to pick up the tab to fund our 
domestic priorities by increasing taxes on companies that provide 
millions of Americans with good jobs and stimulate economic growth.
  I anticipate this tax increase will likely be the first of many 
needed to fund the priorities that bulge between the majority's 
budgets.
  Rural America is served best when we work together in a bipartisan 
fashion. With passage of this rule, partisanship invades rural America 
and destroys bipartisan support for the underlying legislation.
  I want to be clear, I support the farm bill. I do not support the 
nonagriculture, non-Agriculture Committee approved tax increase that 
has been shamefully attached to this legislation.
  Prior to the announcement of this tax increase, it was clear that the 
administration, which has opposed this bipartisan effort, it was clear 
that a veto threat was headed our way.
  A bipartisan farm bill without this tax increase would have produced 
a veto-proof majority and would have sent this farm bill soaring into 
the negotiations with the Senate. Now this farm bill will not be an 
effective product to move American agriculture forward.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Rangel from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Chairman, it's an honor for me to be here. I wish 
that we didn't have to mark up the SCHIP bill so that I could be here 
for the rest of the theater.
  I have been overly impressed with the remarkable bipartisan work that 
Mr. Goodlatte and Chairman Peterson have been doing on a very 
complicated piece of legislation. And I was very surprised that, with 
their ability to, so-call, offset the expenditures of the bill, that 
they came to the conclusion that when it came to food stamps they ran 
out of money.

                              {time}  2000

  Ran out of money to such an extent that I was really completely taken 
off guard when they told me that the Ways and Means Committee should 
provide $4 billion to pay for the food stamps. And I admit I don't 
follow the Agriculture Committee's work as closely as I should have. 
But knowing that Republicans as well as Democrats wanted to make 
certain that 26 million people will continue to have food stamps, I 
said, where would you expect the tax-writing committee to get the money 
that is necessary to keep this bipartisan agreement to? I assume if you 
went to the Energy and Commerce Committee, you would be going there for 
energy. If you went to the Transportation Committee, you would go there 
for transportation. And I assume that we talk the same language, and 
the Ways and Means Committee is the tax-writing committee.
  And when you said it was important to maintain this bipartisan 
agreement, I looked over the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means 
Committee. It wasn't $4 billion in Social Security. It wasn't $4 
billion in Medicare. It wasn't $4 billion in training, though we were 
working hard to make certain to break down the barriers so that our 
farmers could go overseas.
  So there is not one living person on the Agriculture Committee that 
didn't ask me to get it out of what? Taxes. Sorry to use that word, and 
I don't know who is offended. But we felt that we weren't going to 
raise individual taxes. We weren't going to increase corporate taxes. 
So I thought that common sense and political sense would mean that we 
would find out who is not paying taxes and bring that

[[Page 20845]]

revenue in so that we can have a bipartisan agreement in the House and 
the Senate in order to do this.
  Now, strange things can happen, and it appears as though it has. But 
I just want you to know that you can call it offset. You can call it 
revenue enhancement. And we call it fraud and evasion and equity and 
fair play. And it is coming out of the tax-writing committee.
  I just hope you never come to the tax-writing committee and ask for 
relief and, when you get it, say you don't want tax increases.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to 
the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that neither I nor any 
other Republican on this committee that I know of ever went to him and 
asked for any, any funds whatsoever, certainly not from a tax increase.
  Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the distinguished ranking 
member on the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. EVERETT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 2007 
farm bill. The budget resolution that we were forced to work with was 
woefully inadequate for production agriculture. Moreover, the Ways and 
Means Committee, regardless of what the chairman says, included a tax 
increase on companies to pay for this bill.
  I have great concerns for Southeast peanut producers, who grow almost 
85 percent of all peanuts grown in this Nation. They are the number one 
losers in this bill. There is included, in the manager's amendment, an 
important new initiative that will not only help all peanut producers 
address rising input costs, but will ensure greater yields and better 
stewardship of the land through enhanced crop rotation. But the $10 
million annually allocated for this program is not enough to ensure 
this program is successful.
  The ``Farm Bill'' is called the farm bill for one reason--to address 
agricultural needs of our farmers and ranchers. However, the bill 
before us seems to forget the farmer and rural America--specifically at 
a time when many of them are facing difficult times.
  I understand the financial constraints that we had to work on this 
bill. But in light of those constraints, significant funding increases 
were given to conservation and nutrition programs at the expense of 
production agrculture. Additionally, I oppose the last minute 
developments that have occurred to attach a provision to increase taxes 
to pay for some of these increases.
  I strongly oppose these actions, they should not be in the Farm Bill, 
and overall it will hurt Americans.
  I am also concerned over how this additional funding is being 
allocated. Specifically, $1.6 billion was specified for specialty 
crops--most of this money going to California--a state that is ranked 
10th nationally in receiving federal subsidies. Additionally, $150 
million was set aside in the bill for air pollution in California.
  Secondly, conservation funding receives a $1.35 billion increase in 
funding. A significant amount of that money has been set aside for 
specific watersheds. In particular, the Chesapeake Bay Region is 
receiving $400 million alone for conservation programs for this 
watershed.
  Historically, the Chesapeake Bay and other watersheds specified in 
the bill have received billions of dollars in the past for these 
efforts and should not be given special preference in this bill. 
Chesapeake Bay has received over $700 million annually for conservation 
programs addressing the watershed. Why do they need preference 
throughout the program when the rest of the nation is also addressing 
similar issues?
  I am specifically concerned over the preference being given to 
several watersheds under the new Regional Water Enhancement Program. I 
was pleased that this new program was included in the bill--it is an 
issue very close and dear to my heart. I have been working on this 
legislation for several years and I am pleased that much of the 
language of my Farm Reservoir Act has been included in this program. 
This program will provide cost-share assistance to agricultural 
producers for projects like the construction of on-site reservoirs. It 
upsets me that specific watersheds were given priority consideration 
under this program.
  Fortunately, an amendment during full mark-up was included to limit 
these watersheds in receiving no more than half of the funding. 
However, I believe that the Regional Water Enhancement Program should 
not be a place for ``earmarks'' but open to all regions of the 
country--all who are dealing with water issues that are important to 
their region.
  For my part of the country, farmers in the Southeast are facing a 
devastating drought and farmers are faced with the loss of most--if not 
all--of their crops. Many ranchers are being forced to sell their herds 
since they have no feed for them. This program would help many of these 
farmers to build farm reservoirs that will help farmers during these 
difficult times and could help save many of their crops--a savings to 
taxpayers in the future in crop insurance and disaster payments.
  Some would try and argue that my state is guilty of also receiving 
large subsidies that I have just spoken against. Many of you may be 
surprised to know that Alabama is in the bottom half of the nation in 
receiving federal subsidies--27th out of 50. I like to also point out 
that 72 percent of all farmers and ranchers in Alabama do not collect 
government subsidies.
  These are the same farmers and ranchers that are struggling with 
severe drought conditions and are hoping for some federal assistance to 
help them get through these difficult times--whether through disaster 
payments or federal programs like the Regional Water Enhancement Act. 
However, a permanent disaster payment was not incorporated in this bill 
because there was not enough money.
  All of the programs in the Farm Bill are important but to receive 
such a drastic increase while producers are struggling does not seem 
right. Claiming there is no money to include a permanent disaster 
payment program for farmers who face significant financial loss of 
crops due to natural disasters like hurricanes, drought, wild fires, 
disease, pests and tornadoes--is wrong!
  I look forward to continually working with the Chairman and Ranking 
Member to address many of these concerns as we move forward.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 
minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my 
good friend Mr. Lantos from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, my good friend from Minnesota, 
Collin Peterson, for his outstanding leadership on this critically 
important bill.
  Today we reconfirm one of this government's most solemn commitments: 
reaching out to help the most desperate people on the planet. By 
reauthorizing and strengthening the longstanding and successful Public 
Law 480 food aid program, we show the entire world that we are serious 
about using our vast resources for resoundingly positive action.
  The 850 million people around the globe without sufficient food cling 
to a precarious existence: foraging for daily sustenance, unable to 
take care of their starving families, and locked into a perpetual cycle 
of poverty and hunger.
  The lack of food is particularly vicious for HIV and AIDS patients, 
whose medications often make them even hungrier. They now live longer 
with the medications the United States has provided under landmark 
legislation we in Congress passed 5 years ago, but, Madam Chairman, in 
a cruel twist of fate, they trade the pains of the disease for the 
pangs of hunger.
  The plight of the starving represents one of the most disturbing and 
dire societal shortfalls on this planet, and addressing worldwide 
hunger represents the most unambiguous American moral obligation that 
faces us today.
  That is why the international food aid programs reauthorized in 
Chairman Peterson's bill we are considering today demand our full and 
enthusiastic support. We sit here discussing this bill in the 
comfortable, air-conditioned Capitol, where we cannot really fathom 
what it is like to be scrounging for food in one of the world's many 
developing nations. I hope my colleagues will remember this when 
considering any effort to weaken these indispensable initiatives.
  Our bill reauthorizes the historic and widely praised Public Law 480 
food aid program. Public Law 480 was originally established in 1954, 
and it propelled the United States into worldwide leadership in the 
donation of food to developing nations and their millions of people. 
For more than half a century, our groundbreaking law has utilized the 
abundant agriculture resources of America to help ameliorate hunger 
around the globe.

[[Page 20846]]

  Public Law 480 and the other food aid programs are so successful 
because of a simple recipe: the combination of the American people's 
compassion, and the dedication of private organizations and the 
companies that make the programs work. This supply chain highlights the 
unparalleled productivity of our farmers and processors and the 
dedication of those who administer, transport, and distribute food aid.
  This broad and diverse network has enabled Congress and the executive 
branch to sustain strong funding levels to feed the world's hungry for 
decades. Our legislation before Congress today maintains this strong 
coalition; yet at the same time, it updates and modernizes the program 
to make it more effective.
  I am particularly delighted to highlight that this bill restores 
mandatory funding for the landmark McGovern-Dole program, which lives 
up to the accomplishments of the two great former Senators, one 
Republican, one Democrat, who created it. This program specifically 
targets the legions among the world's starving who are least able to 
help themselves: the children of the poor across the globe.
  The bill also increases funding for developmental food aid. The 
administration in recent years has blurred the line between so-called 
``developmental food aid'' and ``emergency food aid.'' But with 850 
million people starving on this planet and the vast majority of them 
chronically short of sustenance, the beneficiaries of developmental 
food aid are just as needy as recipients of emergency food aid. They 
don't care what pot of money funds the donated food; they only care to 
see their families fed.
  The manager's amendment proposed by the distinguished chairman Mr. 
Peterson includes language that was passed by my Foreign Affairs 
Committee authorizing a critical $2.5 billion for international food 
aid programs.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in passing this most important 
legislation, which will ensure the United States continues to lead the 
way in addressing the patently unacceptable plight of the world's 
hungry.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, another of our ranking 
members on the committee, Mr. Lucas.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member 
for this effort this evening.
  I would have never thought that I would be standing on the floor of 
the United States House advocating ultimately a ``no'' vote on the farm 
bill. I would have never thought that. As a farmer from Oklahoma, as an 
individual with a degree in agricultural economics from Oklahoma State, 
I would have never thought that I would be advocating a ``no'' vote on 
a farm bill.
  How did we get to this point? Let's remember, first and foremost, 
farm bills, while the goal is to help rural America, while the goal is 
to help make farming and ranching a thriving industry, the real goal is 
providing the food and fiber supply that feeds and clothes this Nation 
and the world. And since the 1930s, we have done an exceptional job 
with these farm bills, an exceptional job, and it has been a 
nonpartisan, nonpolitical process. We may disagree by region, we might 
disagree by commodity group, but it was always pulling together for the 
good of this country and the consumers that we serve around the world.
  We have now come off of two extremely successful farm bills: the 1996 
bill with its dramatic reform, flexibility in production decisions, 
certainty of payment; the 2002 farm bill, building on that with a 
safety net. Two very successful farm bills.
  As a matter of fact, they were so successful that the amount of money 
set aside for the 2002 farm bill, we spent $60 billion less than was 
projected, and that was where we got into trouble, and that is what has 
got us to this point. Sixty billion dollars we saved, and we got not 
one penny's worth of credit for it.
  So we began this farm bill process with $60 billion less than we had 
5 years ago. That was a decision made by the senior leadership in the 
new majority. When you are $60 billion down and trying to move 
successful and popular programs forward, you have got problems. 
Chairman Peterson worked diligently. The entire committee worked 
diligently. But, ultimately, when we were not given credit, we had to 
depend on a massive tax increase.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to 
respond.
  I just want people to remember what happened with the '95-'96 farm 
bill, which was a partisan farm bill. So, we've been down this road 
before.
  I recognize the distinguished subcommittee chairman, my good friend, 
Mr. Holden from Pennsylvania, chairman of the Conservation Credit, 
Energy and Research Subcommittee and vice-chairman of the House 
Agriculture Committee, for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time. And thank 
you for your leadership on this important piece of legislation that we 
have worked on in a very bipartisan manner. And thank you for the 
leeway that you have given the subcommittee chairman in bringing this 
product to the floor.
  And it's not easy. We are a diverse country when it comes to our 
agriculture interests, and the diversity on the committee reflects 
that. But we all came together. We all gave up things that we wanted in 
the bill. The chairman has been talking for 2 years about permanent 
disaster relief. That's not in the bill because we couldn't afford 
everything. Everything that I wanted for the northeast is not in the 
bill. Everything the ranking member wanted for Virginia or my good 
friend, Mr. Lucas, for Oklahoma is not in the bill. We all had to come 
together, and we have delivered a product that is fair.
  In the subcommittee that I chair, under the conservation title, a 
$4.3 billion increase in conservation; that's above baseline, 35 
percent increase. We went around the country hearing what farmers cared 
about the most about conservation; it was EQIP. What did we do with 
EQIP? We put 50 percent additional funding in EQIP.
  In my neck of the woods and in the ranking member's neck of the woods 
in the mid-Atlantic, farmland preservation, by far. When we went to New 
York to have the hearing, the importance of farmland preservation. In 
this bill, we have a 100 percent increase in farmland preservation, as 
well as other water quality improvements. For those who care about the 
Chesapeake Bay, $150 million for river restoration. So we have a strong 
conservation title.
  Credit. We made improvements for credit that we will be discussing 
shortly after general debates that will make credit more accessible in 
rural America.
  Energy. Everybody in this Congress, not just committee, but everybody 
in this Congress has been talking about the need for us to become more 
energy independent. In this bill, we have $2.4 billion in the energy 
title; $2 billion in loan guarantees so we can help this infant 
industry of cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel and take advantage of our 
agricultural natural resources that are so abundant in this country so 
that we can now take a step towards being no longer dependent upon the 
smooth, continuous flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.
  This is a good bill, and I ask everyone to support it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to 
yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from California (Mrs. Bono).
  Mrs. BONO. Madam Chairman, I share the concerns of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas). But I also would like to speak today on a 
specific provision within H.R. 2419 that I'm happy to say will soon 
bring to resolution the implementation of what Congress has wanted for 
6 years, country-of-origin labeling, the act of simply letting U.S. 
consumers know where the product they're picking up in the grocery 
store is from. Sounds simple, logical and straightforward; yet for too 
long Congress has been putting off the implementation of mandatory 
COOL.
  In 2001, I introduced an amendment to the last farm bill to provide 
for COOL, and the amendment passed with

[[Page 20847]]

strong bipartisan support. I have continued to push for mandatory 
labeling of fresh fruits and vegetables ever since 2001, and the debate 
has definitely evolved ever since.
  Because of this, led by the efforts of Chairman Peterson and Ranking 
Member Goodlatte in having all viewpoints come together to discuss a 
solution, we now have a product that can be widely supported by 
consumers and farmers. In particular, the changes relating to produce 
will ensure that we have sound policy that isn't subject to the whim of 
misinterpreting congressional intent by the Department of Agriculture. 
From reasonable fines and penalties for not following the law to a 
provision that allows for the labeling of a State or region from which 
the product came to further spotlight our high-quality domestic 
production, the agreement on COOL is a strong one as depicted in the 
Manager's Amendment.
  Madam Chairman, with recent concerns over importing products from 
foreign countries like China, the importance of country of origin 
labeling as a matter of public safety and the right of the consumer to 
make an informed choice has only become more urgent.
  Again, I want to express my sincere appreciation to Chairman Peterson 
for his interest and focus on addressing this issue, as he was able to 
bring parties together for a reasonable and bipartisan solution to 
mandatory COOL.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I am now pleased to recognize another 
subcommittee chairman, the chairman of the Specialty Crops Subcommittee 
and my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) for 2 minutes.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Thank you, Chairman Peterson, for your leadership 
throughout the development of this farm bill and working diligently to 
craft a bill that protects our Nation's farmers, our environment, and 
our families of rural America.
  The legislation under consideration by this House is critically 
important to rural America. I'm pleased that our subcommittee has 
worked on this to make sure that the value of agriculture is clearly 
understood.
  The peanut industry contributes $800 million in value to our rural 
areas. The sugar industry creates some 372,000 direct and indirect jobs 
in 42 States, and our rural development programs fill a critical gap in 
providing infrastructure for our rural areas, ensuring that folks in 
rural America have adequate EMS units, fire trucks, libraries, and 
water and sewer systems.
  Particularly with regard to rural development, this bill will further 
enhance these rural programs that will allow rural America to have 
better access to technology and better help for rural entrepreneurs. In 
fact, the new Rural Entrepreneur and Microenterprise Assistance program 
will reach some of our most important businesses, those companies 
employing 10 or less people, which now are the biggest drivers of 
economic development in rural America.
  And the Rural Broadband Loan program and the Community Connect Grant 
program are two extremely important pieces that will help the citizens 
of rural America, making sure they have access to high-speed Internet 
that can often make the difference in the success of rural business and 
rural opportunities, and help our businesses, schools, health, and make 
sure that family life is better.
  Just below this Chamber, downstairs on the first floor of this 
historic building, you can look up at the ceiling and see inscribed 
there the words of Daniel Webster who said that ``farmers are the 
founders of civilization.'' I hope that, indeed, all of us will 
remember this; that our very existence depends on the success of our 
farmers and on agriculture in making sure that rural America is 
respected and able to succeed as it will under this bill.
  Madam Chairman, I urge all of our colleagues to support this bill so 
that, indeed, it will be the strong success we need throughout rural 
America.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, it's my pleasure to 
yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), a very 
strong member of the committee.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairman, I come tonight to this floor with a 
very similar attitude that most of us on this side of the aisle are 
feeling. We have worked together on this farm bill, worked in good 
faith with the chairman and the subcommittee chairman. And as the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Rural 
Development, I can say that the most important work in Congress that I 
have been doing is on this farm bill.
  But in the markup committee process, Madam Chairman, I offered an 
amendment with a sense of Congress being that there would be no tax 
increases to pay for this farm bill. And the chairman of the committee, 
Madam Chairman, ruled it out of order, and his words were, ``No one 
here is talking about a tax increase.''
  So, we've gone in good faith in developing this farm bill, but now 
all bets are off because we were not told the truth, and we find 
ourselves tonight in the very awkward position of having to oppose a 
farm bill that we helped craft because of the tax increase.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am now pleased to 
recognize the chairman of our General Farm Commodities Subcommittee, 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), for 2 minutes.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the chairman for his hard work, and really on 
both sides of the aisle, for all the Members who put in long hours, who 
traveled across this country and listened to farmers and commodity 
groups speak.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2419. It's an 
important piece of legislation.
  Madam Chairman, this has been a long process. In the early part of 
the year, our Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk 
Management continued to hold hearings. We listened to groups. All the 
groups came, they talked, they made their recommendations.
  The message we heard from farmers was that they like the basic 
framework that was created under the 2002 farm bill. Not only did we 
preserve that framework, but we made improvements so that the safety 
net worked more effectively.
  And yes, as a result of the farm bill in 2002, we saved money, which 
meant that we had a greater challenge. We maintained the three-legged 
stool that supports farmers through direct payments, counter-cyclical 
payments, and marketing loan benefits. We adjusted loan rates and 
target prices to achieve a rebalancing between commodities that was 
long overdue.
  We included several improvements to the cotton marketing loan program 
to make it more reflective of current market realities and values, as 
well as corrected problems in the program that we experienced since the 
elimination of the Step 2 program.
  We also provided assistance to the textile industry to enhance their 
competitiveness and help keep those jobs here at home.
  This could be called not only an Ag bill; it's a jobs bill, as well 
as a national defense bill, because we use it for food and fiber to 
feed our people.
  I'm also proud that we're also providing farmers with the opportunity 
to experiment with revenue-based counter-cyclical programs. While most 
producers are satisfied with the current counter-cyclical program, some 
farmers are interested in the revenue-based approach.
  Providing farmers with the option to choose between these two types 
of counter-cyclical programs allows them to make the best economic 
decision for their families. This revenue counter-cyclical program will 
also provide us with better insight into how the program works so we 
can determine if it is a better model for future farm bills.
  H.R. 2419 contains Rural Development programs that will better 
facilitate the financing of essential rural infrastructures like public 
water and waste disposal systems. It establishes grant and loan 
programs for rural healthcare facilities. It will improve access to 
broadband telecommunications services in rural areas.
  The Bill also expands funding for a host of conservation programs, 
including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). 
Maintaining the 60 percent share of EQIP funding for livestock is 
extremely important to North Carolina's poultry and pork producers.
  As a representative from one of the most agriculturally diverse 
states in the Nation, and

[[Page 20848]]

a member of the Horticulture and Organic Agriculture Subcommittee, I am 
particularly pleased that we are providing, for the first time ever, 
mandatory dollars for programs that benefit fruit and vegetable 
producers as well as the ever growing organic agriculture industry.
  For our tobacco farmers who have been trying to get into specialty 
crop production since the buyout, these new programs will support the 
industry through projects in research, marketing, education, pest and 
disease management, production, and food safety.
  We are strengthening the nutrition title through extra money for the 
Emergency Food Assistance Program; raising the minimum benefit for Food 
Stamps, which hasn't been done since 1977; and eliminating cap on 
dependent care, which opens up the program to more working families.
  We are reforming crop insurance to provide better coverage for 
organic producers; expanding data mining to root out waste, fraud, and 
abuse; and providing an extra option for producers to obtain 
supplemental area-based crop insurance in addition to their current 
revenue or yield policies.
  We have accomplished all this, and so much more. But we did it with a 
responsible budget. Operating under the Pay As You GO (PAYGO) 
requirements has posed difficult challenges for the Agriculture 
Committee, but I believe we have managed to preserve for farmers a 
sound safety net that provides extra protections, while staying within 
our budget.
  In addition to my service on the Agriculture Committee, I serve on 
the House Budget Committee. Yesterday, we had a hearing with the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General 
of the United States.
  They testified about the budget calamity this Administration and the 
previous Republican Majority have left this country in. A calamity 
which made the job of passing a farm bill that much harder this year.
  According to their testimony, were it not for the policies of this 
Administration and its Republican allies in Congress, the federal 
budget would be in balance today.
  Yet the Republican priorities are so out of whack that today, one of 
the fastest growing segments of the federal budget is interest on the 
national debt.
  And most of that debt is financed by foreign countries like China who 
may not always have America's best interests at heart.
  It was a Democratic Congress that restored fiscal discipline to the 
federal budget through PAYGO rules, and this Farm Bill responsibly 
adheres to those rules.
  I thank the Chairman for his hard work on moving this bill to this 
point, and I urge my colleagues to support farm families, support 
feeding children, support moving to renewable fuels, and vote for H.R. 
2419.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas, another of the subcommittee 
ranking members on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Neugebauer.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chairman, I woke up on Monday this week very 
excited about the opportunity to bring this farm bill to this floor, 
but as you can imagine, my disappointment tonight because of the 
culmination of 2 years worth of hearings all across America, 
subcommittee hearings, 31 hours of markup in full committee working on 
a bill that is going to be good for America, good for American 
agriculture, working in a bipartisan way to make sure that all of 
agriculture has a bright future for this country, making sure that 
America will have a good source of food and fiber for the years to come 
and that it will not become dependent on importing food as we have 
become in importing energy in this country.
  And you can imagine my disappointment because we've worked in a very 
bipartisan way with the chairman, working on the safety net for 
American producers when the commodity prices were low and then working 
on a safety net when we have drought conditions, weather conditions, to 
provide an additional safety net for them.
  But unfortunately, we were duped, I guess is the best way I can say 
it. As we were working along with the leadership, they kept saying we 
are going to find some additional offsets so that they can expand these 
nutrition programs while at the same time asking American producers to 
take cuts in payments, but with the understanding that we weren't going 
to have any new taxes. Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, that isn't the 
way this farm bill was written up.
  Today, without any debate, without any discussion, the American 
people's farm bill was put in jeopardy. It now faces a Presidential 
veto. It now faces opposition from Members of this body that would have 
voted for this farm bill, but now they are not going to vote for this 
farm bill because it raises taxes.
  And what we've known and what we've tried to say to the American 
people over the last few months is we knew this was coming because this 
new leadership has started off on the old way they used to do business 
under the promise of doing business in a new way, by taxing and 
spending, taxing and spending. And it's unfortunate that we would bring 
that kind of politics to the American farm policy.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has 5\1/2\ minutes; the 
gentleman from Virginia has 17\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the ranking member for yielding time.
  Madam Chairman, we started off in a very bipartisan way to put this 
together. We worked in good faith. We worked long hours to come up with 
a really good farm bill. And when it was all done, we all felt very 
good about it. We had a great night. We patted ourselves on the back, 
very pleased with the commodities program, pleased with conservation. 
It was a good bill.
  And where are we today? We've had this tax provision put in at a late 
hour. We have a tax provision that was not properly vetted by the Ways 
and Means Committee. It was placed in this by the Democratic 
leadership, using the Rules Committee to legislate. And this has 
threatened a very good farm bill.
  There are problems with this. First of all, I don't think we really 
know what the real impact is going to be with this tax provision on the 
cost of feed, fertilizer and pesticides. Many of the companies that are 
going to be taxed with this new tax will be forced to raise prices on 
this. And our farmers are already suffering from the high cost of 
inputs, particularly in my State of Louisiana, which is suffering from 
the aftermath of two hurricanes.
  Furthermore, this bill has Davis-Bacon provisions in this which are 
going to hurt a nascent industry, the nascent cellulosic ethanol 
industry. I spoke to the CEO of a company today, and this is going to 
raise the cost of building these new facilities by 10 to 20 percent. 
This is an industry that we want to see grow. We don't want to tax it.
  Finally, the bill places unfunded mandates on the States. I tried in 
committee with an amendment and tried to get this to a full floor 
debate to help our States continue to modernize the Food Stamp program, 
to have the flexibility to do the right thing. This bill, the 
underlying bill, has provisions in it that take away the flexibility 
that our States currently have. It puts the State of Indiana in real 
jeopardy, at risk of losing $100 million.
  This bill is less and less about farmers and it's more and more about 
pure raw politics.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the 
Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, this bill left our committee on a 
bipartisan basis and with my enthusiastic support. I agree with many of 
the laudatory comments made by my colleagues across the aisle. You will 
hear that there is a broad group of associations, commodity groups, 
and, most importantly, producers that support the bill that left our 
committee.
  Now you need to know the rest of the story. My colleagues and I were 
repeatedly told that the necessary offsets would not come from tax 
increases. We have just heard Chairman Rangel confirm that his taxing 
committee provided taxes for the offset. I was misled,

[[Page 20849]]

I hope unintentionally, but nonetheless misled. Over the last 48 hours, 
poison pills have been added that the cynical among us would conclude 
were intentional; short-sighted, but intentional.
  Each of us must weigh the good and bad in all the legislation that we 
consider. Great judgment is required. Last week at this time, almost at 
this exact time, I fully expected to be here tonight perhaps fighting 
off bipartisan opposition to this bill, but nonetheless supporting this 
bill, not participating in a raw, partisan fight that was totally 
unnecessary.
  This bill is proproducer and prohungry around the world, but it is 
antibusiness and antimanufacturing jobs. It is an affront to States 
rights and unnecessarily panders to unions.
  Sadly, we have gone from a bill that should have passed with broad 
bipartisan support to one that will not enjoy that support.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
chairman of the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee, my friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  Mr. BOSWELL. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for his hard work.
  Madam Chairman, how many times do we have to hear over and over and 
over from the borrow-and-spend community across the aisle here? I hope 
that they would remember there are positive things that happened.
  We brought the livestock community together. They are moving forward. 
It is good for America. We brought the dairy community together. For 
perhaps the first time, there is no dairy war going on because they sat 
down in a compromise. We can't thank them enough. You might remember 
that. Also, we addressed the issue of mandatory country of origin 
labeling. We worked out a compromise. We are going to go forward and 
meet the consumers' wishes on that.
  As chairman of the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee, I 
cannot say how pleased I am for those compromises and the overall steps 
this legislation takes. Is there still room for improvement? Sure, 
there is. But the Agriculture Committee came together and wrote a farm 
bill for 50 States that would not only benefit farmers, ranchers and 
rural America, but benefits everyone.
  As everyone walks away today at the time when we finish this bill, I 
would like them to remember one thing: Every man, woman and child has a 
vested interest in agriculture. By ensuring that our producers have an 
adequate safety net, we in turn ensure we have the safest, most 
plentiful and affordable food in the world.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished 
member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chairman, I am a proud member of the 
Agriculture Committee. My grandfather was a county agent. My mother was 
an extension service agent. One out of three Nebraskans make their 
living in the field of agriculture.
  Of all the rancor and divisiveness in this House, the Agriculture 
Committee has been one place where cooperation and comity is the 
tradition. I was proud to be a part of crafting this farm bill. The 
farm bill passed out of committee by a voice vote. No one objected.
  It is not perfect. It is a huge piece of legislation with many moving 
parts. But I felt that it did make progress in promoting agriculture 
entrepreneurship, agriculture-based energy production and a renewal of 
conservation in land stewardship goals.
  But the end of this process has been seriously disappointing. The 
spirit of the Agriculture Committee's work has been violated. I want a 
vibrant agriculture system that feeds our country, helps feed the world 
and in turn preserves a way of life, a tradition that marks the 
character of our great country.
  Madam Chairman, I urge the majority party to get this process back on 
track.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), another of our great 
subcommittee chairmen, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department 
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. BACA. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support for this farm 
bill. Let me say that clearly this bill does not increase taxes. As 
chair of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, 
Nutrition, and Forestry, I want to say that I am especially proud of 
this farm bill, what it does for the nutrition of minorities, seniors, 
disabled, single parents and for our veterans.
  Right now there are 38 million Americans who do not have enough to 
eat. Eleven percent of the population are going hungry. Today in the 
Latino community and the African American community, that rate is 
double.
  This farm bill fights hunger in America by making an historic 
investment in nutrition. Our nutrition title will benefit over 13 
million American families.
  Currently the average food stamp recipient receives only $21 a week. 
That is unacceptable. This farm bill will make food stamps keep up with 
the cost of living. Gas, health care, housing and grocery bills have 
gone up, but food stamps haven't kept up. We are going to change that.
  This is going to help working families, our disabled, our senior 
citizens, our veterans and our single parents. Most importantly, it is 
going to help our children. Fifty percent of food stamp recipients are 
kids. That is what this farm bill is about: Feeding our children; 
leaving no child behind. This farm bill will ensure that children will 
have access to fresh fruits and vegetables in all schools by expanding 
the USDA snack program to all 50 States.
  This farm bill ensures that senior citizens and disabled adults have 
enough to eat by continuing the Commodity Foods Supplemental Program 
and expanding access to farmers' markets.
  What it will also do is help military families. For the first time, 
this bill exempts military combat pay from being counted against the 
income of men and women who are fighting for us.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. It is an 
excellent bill that meets needs across America and helps all of us.
  We're also going to make it easier for them to handle their paperwork 
processing by allowing telephone signatures.
  And what about our military families? This is the first Farm Bill to 
exempt Special Military Combat pay from being counted against our 
military families who are trying to make ends meet while their loved 
ones are serving in places like Iraq or Afghanistan.
  We have fought to ensure that Food Stamps cannot be privatized--and 
we have taken an extra step in this Farm Bill to remove the stigma in 
the Food Stamp program.
  We are going to eliminate embarrassing coupons, transition everyone 
to EBT cards and change the name of the program to the Secure 
Supplemental Nutrition Access Program, or SSNAP.
  Now our working families will be able to go to the store, swipe their 
SSNAP cards and bring food home to their children with dignity.
  We also help support our food banks and soup kitchens by giving large 
increases to The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
  The ``TEE-FAP'' not only serves our homeless, but provides life-
saving assistance to our families after natural disasters, like 
Hurricane Katrina.
  Simply put, this Farm Bill strengthens our Nutrition safety net like 
no other firm bill has ever done before!
  This farm bill is also historic in its commitment to diversity in 
Agriculture.
  This bill increases agriculture opportunities for underserved 
communities such as African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and 
Asian-Pacific Islanders.
  We give $150 million dollars in mandatory funding for outreach to 
small and socially disadvantaged farmers.
  This bill also requires an annual report to Congress to see if our 
outreach to minority farmers is working.
  The Farm Bill also creates an Advisory Board to deal with civil 
rights violations.
  We require that 10 percent of conservation funding go to our small 
and disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

[[Page 20850]]

  The Farm Bill also creates new programs and increases funding for 
minority serving institutions and tribal colleges.
  In addition--we have preserved the Davis-Bacon provision to ensure 
workers in rural America earn a decent wage.
  We have worked hard to create a Reform Farm Bill that includes all of 
us--farmers, working families, minorities, urban communities, rural 
America.
  This bill is a good bill that will ensure that all Americans get a 
fair shot.
  It makes a historic investment in nutrition and increases 
opportunities for traditionally underserved communities. I urge my 
colleagues to support this vital legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a new member of the committee 
who has distinguished himself.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the ranking member.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in disappointment. Disappointment, 
because only 6 months ago I sat in this chair to be sworn into this 
body, and I listened to our Speaker sit up at that podium and say this 
body was going to talk about partnership, not partisanship.
  When I went onto the Agriculture Committee, I thought I found that 
partnership. For 6 months, we worked in a bipartisan manner, and I will 
tell you, I was proud of the fact to work with my colleagues, my 
colleagues like Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza. We worked together in a 
bipartisan fashion on bills such as this farm bill. We even looked to 
the 21st century and putting in specialty crops. We have done 
tremendous items when it comes to this farm bill.
  But I will tell you that that was all taken away this week. That all 
changed when we now decide to raise taxes, $4 billion. Instead of 
looking for the future, instead of thinking of our children, who are 
going to compete for the first time since the 1860s, to have economies 
that are going to compete in America, to be as large as or even larger 
when you talk about China and India, now we are going to take away 
jobs. That is not partnership. That is partisanship.
  And it is not like we bring up a farm bill every year, or we even 
bring it up every 2 years. We only talk about a farm bill twice every 
decade. We are missing an opportunity. We are missing a very big 
opportunity.
  That disappointment, when I think back 6 months ago when I listened 
to our Speaker say that, I listened earlier tonight to our debate when 
we had our chairman from the Ways and Means Committee down here talking 
about why he wanted to raise taxes. And I listened earlier this week 
when we had appropriation bills, and you wonder where does the money 
go? We build monuments to ourselves, because people think they have 
served in this body long enough that they should spend $2 million 
building their own libraries. That is not what the American people are 
asking for. That is not what the American people are looking for.
  I guess I when I think back 6 months ago, the Speaker should have 
looked at a quote from Dwight Eisenhower, when Dwight Eisenhower said, 
``You don't lead by hitting people over the head. That is assault, not 
leadership.''
  Let's send this bill back and have real leadership, and go back to 
the bipartisanship that the Agriculture Committee has experienced for 
the last decades, because there is only two chances we have for it for 
the next decade.
  Madam Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield for purposes of a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cardoza), the subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee of Horticulture 
and Organic Agriculture, one of our outstanding Members, who has done a 
great job.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
  Madam Chairman, I'm proud to stand with you, on the House floor, at 
this historic moment in the development of U.S. farm and food policy.
  For the first time in the history of the farm bill, this year our 
farm policies will put fruit and vegetable growers on an equal playing 
field with commodity farmers. Fruits and vegetables are a growing and 
important component of American agricultural output.
  In 2006, U.S. production of specialty crops--fruits, vegetables, tree 
nuts, dried fruits and nursery crops--accounted for $53 billion, or 44 
percent of total U.S. crop receipts.
  The fruit and vegetable industry benefits from marketing, research, 
and educational programs, rather than traditional crop subsidies, to 
manage the challenges of increased global trade and foreign 
competition. These challenges include increasing domestic consumption, 
reviving export growth, aggressively managing food safety, and 
mitigating pest and disease problems.
  The 2007 Farm Bill addresses these challenges by providing $365 
million in new mandatory funding for the specialty crop block grant 
program. Block grants are vital for ensuring that solutions to these 
myriad challenges are flexible and locally driven.
  This bill also responds to the pest and disease management needs of 
the specialty crop industry by establishing a comprehensive early pest 
detection and surveillance program. The bill provides $200 million in 
mandatory funding for this new program to work in cooperation with 
State departments of Agriculture.
  The needs of America's nurseries are addressed by directing USDA to 
collaborate with nursery industry organizations as it develops, tests, 
and disseminates new systems of nursery pest and disease management.
  It also establishes within USDA a program for a National clean plant 
network. This network will provide a sustainable source of pest and 
disease free horticulture stocks.


                          Organic Agriculture

  This bill responds to the preferences of consumers across the United 
States by making an unprecedented investment in organic agriculture. 
Organic foods are the fastest growing sector of U.S. retail food 
sales--growing at approximately 20 percent annually over the past 
decade.
  In 2006 organic retail sales reached almost 3 percent of the entire 
United States food and beverage market. The 2007 Farm Bill recognizes 
growth in the organic food sector by expanding the assistance available 
to producers converting from conventional agriculture to organic 
production.
  To help with the transition the 2007 Farm bill provides $22 million 
in mandatory funding for the National Organic Certification Cost Share 
program.
  Organic farmers need reliable market information to assist them in 
production and marketing decisions.
  This bill does that by providing $3 million in mandatory funding for 
data collection on price, production volume, and other organic market 
characteristics. Most data currently collected by USDA is of little 
relevance to organic producers because it is collected without regard 
to the method of growing.
  The historic recognition of the horticulture and organic industries 
in the 2007 Farm Bill is an important accomplishment and sets American 
farm policy in a new direction for the 21st Century.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), one of our great committee 
members and a great friend of mine.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Chairman, we are at an extraordinarily 
important moment. The people of America are watching us all across this 
country.
  The U.S. agricultural community and industry employs over 20 percent 
of our entire workforce and accounts for $3.5 trillion every year in 
our economy. And it is just somewhat baffling to me as we look, and we 
have worked together in the committee to get many competing forces 
together, that the gentleman and gentlewomen on the other side of the 
aisle would turn their backs on the American people and all the work 
that we did together and in bringing these competing forces together, 
whether it was black farmers or our Traditionally Black Colleges, or 
food stamp recipients, all with compelling needs, country of origin 
labeling, on a whimsical excuse, because we had to balance and score 
this at a time so that we would have pay-as-you-go so we wouldn't put 
it on the backs of our children and grandchildren to pay for this farm 
bill; went to Ways and Means and asked them to find a way to get us $4 
billion, and they went and got a way that was first presented by 
President Bush.
  President Bush said, let us close this loophole on foreign companies 
that are using what is known as earning strippings to stop paying taxes 
like every other American business. When President Bush said this just 
6 months ago, there was no hue and cry about a tax increase.

[[Page 20851]]

  There is no tax increase on this. This is a good bill. Let's pass it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say to 
the gentleman from Georgia that no one on this side of the aisle is 
turning their back on anybody. We are simply recognizing that 
increasing taxes in order to pay for what is in this farm bill is the 
wrong thing to do. To set businesses who have invested in this country 
and the American workers whose jobs depend on them against that is 
very, very wrong, and I would suggest to the gentleman that everyone I 
have talked to has called this a tax increase.
  Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a distinguished member of the committee.
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chairman, after months of bipartisan work in the 
House Agriculture Committee on a farm bill that meets the needs of 
American farmers without raising taxes, House leadership is inserting a 
600 percent tax increase on U.S. subsidiary manufacturers in the 2007 
farm bill. Democrats want to slap manufacturers, who employ 5.1 million 
American workers and pay $325 billion in wages, with a massive tax 
hike.
  As representative of a State and a district where the agricultural 
and manufacturing industries account for a larger share of employment 
on average than in the rest of the Nation, this is a double slap in the 
face.
  Many are not aware that Michigan, the auto capital of the world, is 
second in the Nation in agricultural diversity. Not only do I feel like 
the months I spent canvassing my district meeting with farmers and 
members of the agricultural community were for naught, I am also deeply 
worried about the impact of this proposed tax hike on south central 
Michigan.

                              {time}  2045

  In the Wolverine State, U.S. subsidiaries play a vital role in 
supporting jobs and employing 201,000 Michiganers.
  I just inquire of the other side: Why are we moving away from 
policies that encourage job development and investment? And what is a 
tax increase on manufacturers even doing in the farm bill?
  The Ag Committee put aside partisan differences and worked together 
on a bill that meets the needs of American farmers without raising 
taxes. The House should be voting on that bill, crafted in a bipartisan 
manner, that meets those needs without foisting this on the public.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Chairman, I thank Mr. Goodlatte for all 
of his time and hard work on this legislation, as well as the members 
of the committee who traveled to Washington State for a farm bill 
listening session last year.
  I rise today to highlight the need for a strong farm policy that will 
ensure the success of farmers in eastern Washington and across the 
Nation. Agriculture is the number one employer in Washington State, and 
in eastern Washington, a $1.1 billion industry.
  I support a farm bill that makes a strong commitment to specialty 
crops by investing in nutrition, research, pest management, and trade 
promotion programs.
  Whitman County is the leading producer of wheat and barley in the 
United States. The 2002 farm bill changed how marketing loan rates were 
calculated for wheat, and as a result, our wheat growers have been left 
out of the intended safety net. Although I believe to ensure fairness 
we should calculate counter-cyclical payments by class of wheat, I am 
encouraged that growers will have the option to choose a revenue-based 
payment.
  I am disappointed dried peas and lentils were not placed on equal 
ground, but we can work on that later. I am committed to working for 
policies that will help our farmers and ranchers compete. However, I am 
disappointed that this bill will raise taxes on companies.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King), a member of the committee whose work we appreciate.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  I said earlier there were five reasons to vote against this bill. I 
just sat down and wrote a list. Now there are seven. Some of them have 
been added to it since it passed the committee. We are facing a tax 
increase, a huge tax increase. That is something that a lot of us can't 
cross.
  The abrogation of treaties. When you think about the implications not 
just of companies doing business in the United States but the reaction 
when the retribution comes from foreign countries when they start to 
change their trade agreements and treaties with us. That is going to 
mean it is going to be nearly impossible for us to negotiate bilateral 
trade agreements, WTO trade agreements; and that draws a bright line 
against trade.
  There is Davis-Bacon wage scale in this bill. I will make the 
prediction that the 5th Congressional District of Iowa will remain the 
number one renewable fuels congressional district in America. Last year 
we put over a billion dollars of private capital into that, and we did 
so without the Davis-Bacon wage scale. We did it with merit shop wages. 
We built good plants, state of the art, and developed the technology. 
We are number one in biodiesel in my district. We will be number one in 
ethanol by the end of this season. We will stay there because they are 
not going to use this component because they will not be able to afford 
it. It is a 20 percent increase in cost. Where you could build five 
plants before, now you can only build four. We have a 46 percent 
increase in Food Stamps under the argument of food insecurity, but yet 
no one was going without food. They just thought some future meal they 
might have to worry about. So 46 percent increase in food stamps.
  The Pickford v. Glickman that was mentioned by the gentleman from 
Georgia, there were black farmers that were discriminated against. And 
some were. But a billion dollars was paid out to some of them. And $100 
million was spent in administration of Pickford, and I looked into 
that. What we have are 18,000 black farmers in America, 96,000 
claimants and a future liability to this bill of $3 billion in the 
Pickford piece. I know it is not all authorized, I know we have not 
found all of the money, but you open the door to that.
  I will vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the distinguished ranking member 
on the House appropriations agriculture subcommittee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to commend the members of the Ag Committee on a 
bill that is well put together in some parts. As the chairman knows, he 
has been very generous with his time, talking to me about the cotton 
section, the peanut section, and fruits and vegetables. I think there 
was a lot of good bipartisan support. I commend the committee for that.
  Unfortunately, so much of this bill is not direct agriculture. So 
much of this bill, 60 to 70 percent, and this is true with all farm 
bills, it is the entitlement section, the school nutrition programs, 
there are a number of problems I have with that.
  Number one, this tax increase is to support an increase in the 
entitlement section. It doesn't go directly to farmers or help the dirt 
farmer. It is not intended for that.
  I have problems with the tax increase, and I do think it should have 
been gone through the Ways and Means Committee where it could have been 
thoroughly vetted and people could have decided what does this mean, 
because the truth of the matter is there are question marks on both 
sides.
  The second thing, in agriculture appropriations we have had lots of 
hearings on the Indiana privatization of food stamps. I think it is a 
great program. I think reducing the government bureaucracy so that you 
can get more money to the people who need the food

[[Page 20852]]

stamps, I think that is a good fundamental idea. I think it is one that 
President Clinton would have appreciated. It is searching for the third 
way. Not always a Democrat or Republican solution is adequate; you have 
to come up with something else. This is a hybrid program. This is a 
privatization program, and I know that is a bad thing for many on the 
fringe left, but I think most of us in the ag community will agree that 
it is a good thing. And yet this bill stops that.
  The third thing is the special-interest payoff to the unions. Can you 
imagine, here we are at an energy crisis time. It is $3.05 if you shop 
all over town to find the bargain, and we are going to increase the 
cost of producing ethanol. We are going to say if you build an ethanol 
plant, you have to use the highly inflated union prevailing wages. It 
is a special payoff to the unions. We should not increase the price of 
producing energy during a fuel crunch. It is that simple. This bill 
does that.
  Finally, one of the things that we all do, Republicans and Democrats, 
we want to balance the budget. We want to cut out the waste, as long as 
it is done in a different district than ours.
  Now, the farm service agencies, there are too many of them. There are 
58 that don't even have staff. This bill prevents them from being 
closed. We need to close some of the farm service agencies. Because of 
technological changes, we can do that without hurting the farmers, and 
yet this bill will prevent that from happening. One thing we are all 
hypocrites on is, hey, let's balance the budget; but, oh, not here 
where we have an opportunity to balance the budget. I think that is 
something that is ill conceived. I know there is bipartisan resistance 
on that, and it is very difficult for all of us.
  I have four farm service agencies in my district that are being 
closed; and I tell you, it is tough. I hate to see any of them closed, 
but I realize in the big picture if you want to save money for the 
farmers for other programs, sometimes you have to make these decisions.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just say, Madam Chairman, that we reach this point in a 
process that has been going on for about 2 years. It spanned both my 
chairmanship and the current chairman's chairmanship. It has 
encompassed a great deal of effort to write a bipartisan farm bill. We 
have listened to hundreds of farmers. We have received input from 
thousands of farmers and ranchers and others interested in this 
legislation.
  We address the reform that has been requested in a farm bill. We have 
addressed the concerns about more funding for fruits and vegetables for 
nutrition and conservation and renewable fuels. And then to have this 
tax increase injected into this process after the bill has left the 
committee is why you have heard every single Member on this side of the 
aisle speak about how they feel betrayed by this process. It is 
unfortunate for us, but it is also unfortunate for this farm bill 
because what happens when it leaves the House, if it passes at all, 
will be very different than if it passed leaving this House with a 
veto-proof majority. That opportunity has been lost.
  I would say to those on the other side of the aisle we can fix that 
if we would simply slow down and take a look at the appropriate way to 
pay for the additional funding that is due this committee because we 
took a $60 billion cut in the budget. The way to do that is to vote for 
the motion to recommit that we will offer later on that will say you 
can have this farm bill that we have all praised and send it back to 
the committee to look for an appropriate way to do this without pitting 
American agriculture against American industry by having a tax increase 
imposed to pay for the things that are in this bill.
  That's the appropriate way to proceed here. That would restore the 
bipartisanship that is needed in this process, and that would restore a 
good future for this farm bill, which is very much endangered because 
of the injection of this partisan tax increase that has been laid at 
our doorstep, the most bipartisan committee in the House of 
Representatives that has worked so hard and so long. And to be faced 
with this at the end is wrong. I do not support this legislation.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) we have 
enjoyed working with you and your Members, but I don't agree with you. 
I don't believe there is a tax increase in this bill. I have looked at 
it. I am a CPA, and I think you can say it either way, but I don't 
believe it is a tax increase.
  The $60 billion did come out of baseline not because anybody cut it, 
but because the program worked the way it is supposed to. Prices are up 
and spending went down. We are missing the money, but it wasn't because 
anybody cut it.
  We have a good bill, and I encourage all Members to support it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007. I'd also like to 
thank the members of the Agriculture Committee for their commitment to 
this effort which has yielded a farm bill that is a victory for all 
Americans.
  This bipartisan agreement provides a strong safety net for not only 
our Nation's family farmers and small and disadvantaged farmers, but 
also for millions of American citizens who live below the poverty line 
and are dependents on Federal nutrition assistance.
  Committee members worked diligently, day and night for weeks, to 
ensure that funding levels and payment limitations were fair, 
equitable, and available to farmers. It ensures a flexible, affordable 
and top-quality food supply for consumers while strengthening America's 
food safety and security.
  The farm bill provides a 5-year reauthorization of the farm, rural 
development, conservation, and nutrition programs administered by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA. The 2007 farm bill is fiscally 
responsible, fully compliant with the PAYGO rules, while still 
providing a strong safety net for America's farmers and ranchers. It 
makes vital investments in nutrition, conservation, and renewable 
energy. This bill will help producers of all commodities stay on the 
land that they hold and love, so that they can continue with their 
livelihood, while also conserving natural resources for future 
generations.
  The bill before us today also addresses many of the needs of those in 
southwest and middle Georgia, Georgia's 2nd Congressional District, 
which I represent, in terms of protecting our Nation's farmers, 
conserving our natural resources, and feeding the hungry.
  In addition, the bill will provide better balances in support 
programs between all types of crops. The bill's reforms further 
encourage farmers to plant for the market, and not for the benefit of 
government programs. It also provides a sharp increase in funding for 
fruit and vegetable and other specialty crops, mandates implementation 
of country of origin labeling, and increases assistance to small and 
disadvantaged farmers significantly, including important new language 
with respect to the Pigford case. In addition, the bill increases 
funding for school lunch and other nutritional programs, and provides 
for new and extended conservation, research, trade promotion, and rural 
development programs.
  This bill makes much needed strides in reforming the nutrition title 
to better help Americans adequately cover food costs and sustain 
themselves for the entire month. It increases the minimum benefit for 
food stamp recipients, which is especially important for senior 
citizens in need. It also helps feed our military families by excluding 
special combat pay as income when qualifying for food assistance 
programs.
  Finally, I am particularly pleased that the bill proposes and 
improves the quality of life of the people living in our rural 
communities by renewing successful programs that provide critical 
healthcare, emergency and communications needs to underserved areas. It 
creates a new grant program to assist rural health facilities, improves 
access to broadband telecommunications services in rural areas with a 
greater focus on the rural communities of greatest need, and supports 
critical infrastructure programs for rural cities and town.
  Today, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ``Protect 
our Farmers.'' They protect us by satisfying our most basic needs--
food, fiber, and fuel. Let us pass this Farm bill today for our farmers 
across this great Nation who desperately need this support, so that 
they are able to continue producing a safe and reliable food source.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill.
  Mr. SHULER. Madam Chairman, this bill includes important reforms that 
will help conservation efforts by private forest landowners.

[[Page 20853]]

Today I offer an amendment to help out a little more.
  Over 260 million acres of forest lands are in the hands of families 
and individuals. At least 75 million acres of forests are part of 
farms. Forests provide habitats for wildlife, a source for clean water, 
and places to hunt, fish, hike and enjoy other recreational activities.
  But many of our privately owned forest lands are threatened by 
insects or diseases, and these threats are real. Most of the insects or 
diseases are non-native and invasive, making them difficult to contain.
  In my district, private landowners expect to lose all of their 
hemlocks from the attack of the hemlock wooly adelgid. This loss would 
permanently alter the diversity and unique forest environment in our 
region.
  Madam Chairman, this bill provides emergency restoration funding for 
private forest lands that experience a loss or damage from natural 
disaster. My amendment would take this one step further and allow the 
emergency restoration funds to be used for treating private forest 
lands under imminent threat of attack by insect and disease.
  In the case of insect or disease, we must stop their invasion before 
they create the disaster. Preventing the losses will save money and 
save our forests. Prevention is less expensive than restoration.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the members of the committee for their work 
on this bill to support healthy forests, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the Shuler amendment.
  Mr. HARE. Madam Chairman, on behalf of Illinois agriculture, I rise 
in strong support of the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act.
  This bill maintains a viable safety net for our farmers. Since my 
congressional district receives the second most crop payments of all 
the freshmen in Congress, a strong subsidy program is critical for 
farmers in the 17th Illinois Congressional District.
  Additionally, the bill encourages biofuel research and production, 
which are vitally important to my congressional district and the energy 
security of our Nation.
  The 2007 Farm bill also supports rural America through programs that 
provide healthcare, emergency communications, and broadband 
telecommunications services to rural areas.
  Before the bill passed out of committee, I joined with many of my 
colleagues to ensure it funded nutrition programs so that Americans 
continue to have access to a high quality and inexpensive food supply.
  In response, the bill increases the minimum benefit for the Food 
Stamp Program for the first time in more than 30 years.
  For the safety and security of our food and the future of U.S. 
agriculture, I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 
2419.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, our Nation's food inspection system is a 
critical safeguard in guaranteeing the health and welfare of all 
Americans. However, the federal protections that have existed for over 
40 years are now threatened by a provision in the Farm bill that would 
allow meat and poultry inspected by state inspectors to be sold across 
state lines.
  The Nation's food inspection system has served our Nation well by 
providing clear guidelines and a network of dedicated professional 
Federal inspectors. Its roots go back to the early 1900s, where a 
Federal inspection system became one of the landmark legislative 
accomplishments of President Theodore Roosevelt. While occasional 
problems have developed, on the whole, our national meat and poultry 
inspection system has been an unqualified success, with minimal 
incidents of food borne illnesses due to poor practices, handling or 
hygiene.
  So why would we change a system that is so successful? It is my 
understanding that this change is being proposed to encourage the 
growth of small meat processing facilities as well as create new 
markets for state-inspected meat. While more competition and building 
new markets are laudable goals, they need not come at the expense of 
food safety or result in the dismantlement of the federal inspection 
system. No one has made a compelling case that the federal inspection 
system has truly hindered competition or market development. Thousands 
of small plants do well under the current inspection regIme.
  However, in making this change, we are opening the door to problems 
that could multiply the exposure of consumers to food borne illnesses 
and food poisoning. The record of plants subject to state inspection is 
troubling. The USDA IG has repeatedly found that state inspection 
regimes often do not meet basic requirements for sanitation or 
cleanliness.
  Despite this, language was added to the Farm bill to roll back these 
protections. A letter to Congress from a coalition of groups promoting 
food safety pointed out that the provision would:

       Eliminate the 40 year old protection in the federal meat 
     and poultry inspection acts that prohibit shipping state 
     inspected meat across state lines.
       Make 80% of all federally inspected plants eligible to 
     leave federal inspection in favor of state programs which 
     supporters of the bill insist are more understanding of 
     company problems.
       Not allow states to impose additional or higher food safety 
     standards.
       Ignore the inability of states to implement recalls of 
     adulterated meat and poultry that have crossed state lines.

  The potential for the spread of food-borne illnesses across the 
country will only increase if we are to allow this provision to remain 
in the legislation. I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure that 
this troubling provision be dropped when the conference to the Farm 
bill is convened. Americans deserve the piece of mind that comes with 
the knowledge that the next meal they consume will not make them sick 
nor cause them harm.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I'd like to thank Representative 
Alcee Hastings for bringing together, in his amendment, two important 
pieces of legislation for research funding and protection of habitat 
for pollinators--the bees, birds, bats and other animals and insects 
that help sustain more than two-thirds of the world's crop species. 
Pollinators are responsible for one out of every three mouthfuls of 
food eaten.
  Despite the critical role that pollinators play for our food supply 
and ecosystem health, we are seeing disruptions of localized 
pollination systems and declines of certain species of pollinators on 
every continent except Antarctica. Populations of a variety of 
pollinator species have been declining in recent years due to loss of 
habitat, improper use of pesticides and herbicides, replacement of 
native plant species with non-native or engineered plants, and the 
introduction of non-native, invasive species, either by accident or 
through farming practices.
  I'm pleased to see that this amendment places a greater emphasis in 
existing USDA conservation programs on habitat and other pollinator-
beneficial best management practices to protect and enhance native and 
managed pollinators, which was the key component of H.R. 2913, which I 
introduced this Congress.
  In addition, the amendment provides research funding to address 
Colony Collapse Disorder in honey bees places, an issue championed by 
my friend Mr. Hastings and his bill, H.R. 1709.
  This amendment will help keep pollinator populations healthy and 
improve the viability of our food supply and our environment. I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, this is an unfortunate day. 
Today, here on the floor of the House of Representatives, we are 
witnessing a blatant disregard for sound policy, fiscal restraint, and 
due process by the Majority Leadership. The Farm Bill that we are 
debating today is not the bill that was reported out of the Committee 
on Agriculture. It is a product of a late night raid by Leadership on 
the rules process to insert yet another tax increase.
  Farm programs have always had their champions and their detractors, 
but in the 22 years that I have served in this body, it has never been 
a partisan issue. I have voted in favor of almost every Farm Bill that 
has come before me, but I cannot vote for this one. I have consistently 
supported the hard working farmers and ranchers in my district, and I 
will continue to do so. But I cannot support this tax increase that has 
been added without debate, and without relevant committee input.
  Over the past year, I have had the chance to visit with producers 
from across my district. Practically every single one of them has told 
me that the Farm Bill we passed in 2002 has proven to be a sound safety 
net for their various enterprises. The bill that was reported out of 
the Agriculture Committee continued those proven principals. 
Unfortunately, this is not that bill.
  As ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am also 
concerned that this bill, which has an entire title (Title 9) devoted 
to energy, was never seen by our committee. Beyond that, it seems that 
the left hand of our Majority in this body does not know what its right 
hand is doing. As the year began, I was a little surprised that the 
Majority seemed disinclined to work with me or other Members of the 
Minority in preparing energy legislation. But now I realize that they 
do not even consult with each other.
  Take a look at the energy provisions of the Farm Bill. They overlap 
and duplicate provisions in the legislation reported a few weeks ago by 
the Committee on Energy & Commerce.

[[Page 20854]]

  The Farm Bill has incentives for increased ethanol production; grants 
for consumer education on ethanol; a biomass fuel production section, 
etc.
  Meanwhile, the Energy & Commerce Committee has provisions to do these 
and similar things in its bill. Energy & Commerce has grants for 
cellulosic ethanol production, consumer education for flexible fuel 
vehicles, a study of ethanol blended gasoline, and others.
  If the Majority would like, I'll be happy to offer my services to 
help them sort out and reconcile these provisions among the two bills.
  Of course, if the Agriculture Committee's bill had been referred to 
the Energy and Commerce Committee as it should have been, we could have 
accomplished that reconciliation before the Farm Bill ever got to the 
floor, avoiding this confusion, conflict, and redundancy. That is why 
we have rules in this body on jurisdiction and that's why we should go 
back to following those rules.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, from the time I was young, I was taught 
that a farmer's livelihood depends on two things: the weather and the 
markets. While the government can't control the weather, federal Farm 
Bills provide an invaluable safety net, bringing a level of stability 
to commodity markets that helps farmers stay in business, make plans 
for the future, and continue to feed America and the world.
  The 2007 Farm Bill would ensure farmers have economic stability by 
continuing the direct payment program and by keeping in place a strong 
safety net that allows producers to recoup some of their losses when 
agricultural markets collapse. The bill would give farmers the option 
of participating in the counter-cyclical initiative that was created in 
2002 or in a new, revenue-driven program.
  At the same time, the legislation would make historic reforms by 
prohibiting those who earn more than $1 million in annual adjusted 
gross income from receiving federal agricultural subsidies, by closing 
loopholes that have allowed some people to avoid payment limits, and by 
re-balancing loan rates. These changes in current programs would free 
up additional revenue for the safety net and for the bill's investments 
in conservation, nutrition, rural development, and renewable energy.
  The Farm Bill would make conservation a top priority by increasing 
funding and access to conservation programs that preserve farmland, 
improve water quality and quantity, and enhance soil conservation, air 
quality, and wildlife habitat. Missouri is a very conservation friendly 
state, and the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve 
Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, among 
others, have allowed farmers to more easily address conservation 
problems and comply with expensive, but important, environmental 
regulations.
  By extending and improving the food stamp program and making a strong 
commitment to other nutrition initiatives, the 2007 Farm Bill would 
promote the health of the American people and help families in need. 
The measure would also renew our commitment to rural development, 
agricultural research, forestry and energy. Important to Missouri's 
corn and soybean producers, it would authorize $2 billion in loan 
guarantees for biorefineries to help finance the cost of developing and 
constructing renewable fuel facilities. In Saline County, I have 
witnessed the overwhelming success of Mid-Missouri Energy's ethanol 
production plant. I am hopeful this bill will foster similar success 
stories in Missouri and across our land.
  Also important to Missourians, the Farm Bill would continue price 
supports for dairy farmers and create programs for fruit producers. It 
would also require that all meat sold to American consumers have a 
country-of-origin label beginning in September 2008. The measure 
retains the current prohibition on creating a national animal 
identification to verify the animal's country-of-origin.
  I praise Chairman Collin Peterson and other members of the 
Agriculture Committee for producing a good bipartisan bill. I support 
it, urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it, and ask them to defeat 
any attempt to strip away the meaningful safety net included in this 
legislation.
  Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, this year's farm bill creates an education 
program to give college students an opportunity to participate in 
policy oriented internships to promote and further develop agricultural 
biofuels from biomass. I commend the Chairman for incorporating this 
program into the bill.
  The biofuel industry has experienced rapid growth in recent years. 
Global climate change, and an unstable foreign oil supply, requires the 
United States to develop alternative energies. To do this, the United 
States must create leaders in alternative energies. We must recruit the 
best and brightest across the Nation to participate in the program.
  My amendment makes the eligibility criteria fair and opens the door 
for more qualified students to apply.
  As currently written, the program reaches only five specific states. 
It is important that Congress does not shut out qualified universities 
and students.
  My amendment would expand the program to qualified universities that 
have fields of study related to the biomass and biofuel industry. 
Schools with programs in chemistry, environmental sciences, 
bioengineering, natural resources and public policy would be eligible 
to participate in the internship program.
  This amendment will not add any additional cost to the bill; it will 
only make the internship more competitive.
  Congress needs to provide all students who are studying relevant 
fields the opportunity to gain practical work experience and to 
contribute to America's move to greater energy security. As we continue 
toward that goal, this program will prove invaluable.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. WYNN. Madam Chairman, as Chairman of the Environmental and 
Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, I rise today in strong opposition to 
language contained in the report that accompanies the Farm Bill 
Extension Act of 2007 (H.R. 2419). The report references a ``sense of 
the committee'' amendment that farm animal manure should not be deemed 
a hazardous substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency 
Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). The Farm Bill 
Extension Act does not contain any legislative text discussing whether 
manure is a hazardous substance under these statutes.
  I am strongly opposed to this report language because it would exempt 
releases or threatened releases of hazardous components of manure from 
CERCLA and EPCRA.
  Large animal feeding operations can be significant sources of 
pollution. According to the EPA, animal farming operations generate 
approximately 500 million tons of waste each year, three times more raw 
waste than is generated yearly by people in the United States. This 
waste, which is usually untreated by operations, produces hazardous 
substances such as phosphorous, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide.
  Phosphorous has contaminated local drinking water supplies, requiring 
additional treatment and resulting in increased costs to ratepayers. 
The City of Waco Texas for example is spending more than $54 million 
for capital improvements to address taste and odor problems caused by 
excessive phosphorous released by cow waste.
  I also attach a letter from the Association of Metropolitan Water 
Agencies, dated July 23, 2007, that discusses the negative impact that 
such an exemption would have on the quality of our Nation's drinking 
water supplies.
  If hazardous substances from livestock waste are exempted from 
CERCLA, states and local governments would be denied the ability to 
protect their valuable water supplies and to recover costs associated 
with cleaning up these hazardous substances from drinking water 
sources.
  If hazardous substances from livestock waste are exempted from EPCRA, 
toxic release information would be withheld from communities and 
emergency responders. Many of the large feeding operations release 
large volumes of hazardous air pollutants, such as ammonia and hydrogen 
sulfide. A number of studies have determined health problems among 
animal feeding operation workers and residents who live near these 
operations, including bronchitis, asthma and antibiotic-resistent 
bacterial infections.
  This exemption is unwarranted because CERCLA already includes a 
specific exemption for the normal application of fertilizer. Only those 
livestock operators who excessively apply manure to the land to get rid 
of it, rather than use it to fertilize crops, have potential liability.
  We should not allow these large animal feeding operations to escape 
liability for causing pollution to our communities and pass the costs 
onto community water systems and rate payers.
  Livestock waste should not be exempt from the environmental 
protections that CERCLA and EPCRA provide.

                                                    Association of


                                  Metropolitan Water Agencies,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.
       Subject: Oppose CERCLA Animal Waste Exemption in Farm Bill.

       Dear Representatives: As the House of Representatives 
     prepares this week to consider legislation to reauthorize the 
     Farm Bill, we urge you to reject language that would exempt 
     components of animal waste from designation as a hazardous 
     substance

[[Page 20855]]

     pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response 
     Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Enactment of such an 
     exemption would bring about serious consequences for the 
     quality of America's drinking water supplies.
       During last week's markup of the legislation, the 
     Agriculture Committee adopted an amendment expressing the 
     ``sense of the committee that farm animal manure should not 
     be considered as hazardous substance'' under CERCLA. This 
     follows the introduction earlier this year of legislation in 
     the House and Senate that would specifically exempt animal 
     waste and its components from the law.
       As representatives of community drinking water systems, we 
     believe it is important to note that animal manure itself is 
     not currently considered a hazardous substance, pollutant or 
     contaminant under CERCLA. Moreover, the law already contains 
     an exemption for the normal application of fertilizer that 
     includes manure.
       However, phosphorus and other CERCLA-regulated hazardous 
     substances that are known to compromise the quality of 
     drinking water are commonly present in animal manure. If 
     Congress were to provide a blanket CERCLA exemption for 
     animal waste, consolidated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) 
     would be free to discharge manure containing such hazardous 
     substances into the environment without regard to its impact 
     or liability for its damages. As a result, the costs of 
     additional treatment to make water potable would be forced 
     upon community water systems and their ratepayers, unfairly 
     shifting the burden of cleanup away from polluters.
       Later this year, Congress will celebrate the 35th 
     anniversary of the Clean Water Act, landmark legislation 
     modeled on the belief that all Americans must share the 
     responsibility of maintaining the health of our nation's 
     water supply. Exempting CAFOs from their fair share of this 
     duty not only threatens to reverse the water quality gains 
     that have been realized over the recent decades, but would 
     also set a dangerous precedent encouraging other polluters to 
     seek waivers from our environmental laws.
       Again, we urge you to oppose a blanket exemption for animal 
     waste and its components from the important requirements of 
     CERCLA.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Diane VanDe Hei,
                                               Executive Director.

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in part A of 
House Report 110-261, is adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a subsequent edition of the 
Congressional Record.)
  The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be 
in order except those printed in part B of the report and amendments en 
bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 574.
  Each further amendment printed in the report shall be considered only 
in the order printed in the report; may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read; shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to 
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of 
amendments printed in part B of the report not earlier disposed of. 
Amendments en bloc shall be considered read (except that modifications 
shall be reported); shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member or their 
designees; shall not be subject to amendment; and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.
  The original proponent of an amendment included in amendments en bloc 
may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before 
disposition of the amendments en bloc.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kind

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-261.
  Mr. KIND. Madam 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. Kind:
       [COMMODITY TITLE]
       In section 1102, strike subsection (b) and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (b) Payment Rate.--
       (1) 2008 crop year.--The payment rates used to make direct 
     payments with respect to covered commodities for the 2008 
     crop year are as follows:
       (A) Wheat, $0.52 per bushel.
       (B) Corn, $0.14 per bushel.
       (C) Grain sorghum, $0.25 per bushel.
       (D) Barley, $0.17 per bushel.
       (E) Oats, $0.02 per bushel.
       (F) Upland cotton, $0.05 per pound.
       (G) Rice, $1.65 per hundredweight.
       (H) Soybeans, $0.22 per bushel.
       (I) Other oilseeds, $0.01 per pound.
       (J) Peanuts, $25.20 per ton.
       (2) 2009 crop year.--The payment rates used to make direct 
     payments with respect to covered commodities for the 2009 
     crop year are as follows:
       (A) Wheat, $0.52 per bushel.
       (B) Corn, $0.13 per bushel.
       (C) Grain sorghum, $0.23 per bushel.
       (D) Barley, $0.16 per bushel.
       (E) Oats, $0.02 per bushel.
       (F) Upland cotton, $0.04 per pound.
       (G) Rice, $1.53 per hundredweight.
       (H) Soybeans, $0.20 per bushel.
       (I) Other oilseeds, $0.01 per pound.
       (J) Peanuts, $23.40 per ton.
       (3) 2010 crop year.--The payment rates used to make direct 
     payments with respect to covered commodities for the 2010 
     crop year are as follows:
       (A) Wheat, $0.52 per bushel.
       (B) Corn, $0.11 per bushel.
       (C) Grain sorghum, $0.21 per bushel.
       (D) Barley, $0.14 per bushel.
       (E) Oats, $0.02 per bushel.
       (F) Upland cotton, $0.04 per pound.
       (G) Rice, $1.41 per hundredweight.
       (H) Soybeans, $0.18 per bushel.
       (I) Other oilseeds, $0.01 per pound.
       (J) Peanuts, $21.60 per ton.
       (4) 2011 crop year.--The payment rates used to make direct 
     payments with respect to covered commodities for the 2011 
     crop year are as follows:
       (A) Wheat, $0.49 per bushel.
       (B) Corn, $0.10 per bushel.
       (C) Grain sorghum, $0.35 per bushel.
       (D) Barley, $0.13 per bushel.
       (E) Oats, $0.02 per bushel.
       (F) Upland cotton, $0.04 per pound.
       (G) Rice, $1.29 per hundredweight.
       (H) Soybeans, $0.15 per bushel.
       (I) Other oilseeds, $0.01 per pound.
       (J) Peanuts, $19.80 per ton.
       (5) 2012 crop year.--The payment rates used to make direct 
     payments with respect to covered commodities for the 2012 
     crop year are as follows:
       (A) Wheat, $0.47 per bushel.
       (B) Corn, $0.08 per bushel.
       (C) Grain sorghum, $0.18 per bushel.
       (D) Barley, $0.12 per bushel.
       (E) Oats, $0.02 per bushel.
       (F) Upland cotton, $0.03 per pound.
       (G) Rice, $1.18 per hundredweight.
       (H) Soybeans, $0.13 per bushel.
       (I) Other oilseeds, $0.01 per pound.
       (J) Peanuts, $18.00 per ton.
       (6) Limited resource farmers.--Notwithstanding paragraphs 
     (2), (3), (4), and (5), the payment rates specified in 
     paragraph (1) shall be used for each of the 2008 through 2012 
     crop years in the case of a limited resource farmer, as 
     defined by the Secretary.
       Section 1102 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Conservation Enhanced Payment Option.--
       ``(1) In general.--All producers on a farm that meet the 
     eligibility requirements of paragraph (2) may, in lieu of 
     direct payments otherwise provided in this section, make a 
     one time election to receive enhanced direct payments through 
     crop year 2012 in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to obtain an enhanced 
     direct payment for a covered commodity for a crop year under 
     this subsection, the producers on a farm shall enter into a 
     contract with the secretary under which the producers of the 
     farm agree, for each crop year--
       ``(A) to forgo all counter-cyclical payments under this 
     subtitle and all marketing assistance loans and all loan 
     deficiency payments under subtitle B for the farm subject to 
     a contract under this subsection;
       ``(B) to carry out conservation practices on the farm that 
     are at least equivalent to the requirements for land enrolled 
     under the a conservation security contract entered into under 
     section 1238A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3838a); and
       ``(C) to meet such other requirements as are established by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(3) Amount.--The amount of an enhanced direct payment to 
     be paid to the producers on a farm for a covered commodity 
     for a crop year that enter into a contract with the secretary 
     under this subsection shall be equal to the product obtained 
     by multiplying--
       ``(A) the amount of the direct payment the producers on a 
     farm would otherwise be eligible to receive under subsection 
     (c); and

[[Page 20856]]

       ``(B) 110
       ``(4) One time enrollment.--Producers on a farm shall have 
     one period of time (as determined by the Secretary) in which 
     to enter into a contract for a conservation enhanced payment.
       ``(5) De minimis payments.--A payment under this section 
     that is less than $25.00 in amount shall not be tendered to a 
     producer on a farm''.
       Section 1103 is amended to read as follows:

     SEC. 1103. COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS.

       Section 1103 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7913) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1103. COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) Payment Required.--The Secretary shall make counter-
     cyclical payments to producers on farms for which payment 
     yields and base acres are established with respect to a 
     covered commodity, if the Secretary determines that the 
     national actual revenue per acre for the covered commodity 
     (except for other oilseeds) is less than the national target 
     revenue per acre for the covered commodity, as determined in 
     this section.
       ``(b) National Actual Revenue Per Acre.--For each covered 
     commodity (except for other oilseeds) for the applicable 
     year, the Secretary shall establish a national actual revenue 
     per acre by multiplying the national average yield for the 
     given year by the higher of:
       ``(1) the national average market price received by 
     producers during the 12-month marketing year established by 
     the Secretary; or
       ``(2) the loan rate.
       ``(c) National Target Revenue Per Acre.--The national 
     target revenue per acre shall be, on a per acre basis, as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Wheat, $140.42.
       ``(2) Corn, $344.12.
       ``(3) Grain Sorghum, $131.28.
       ``(4) Barley, $123.13.
       ``(5) Oats, $88.36.
       ``(6) Upland cotton, $516.86.
       ``(7) Rice, $548.06.
       ``(8) Soybeans, $219.58 .
       ``(9) Peanuts, $683.83.
       ``(d) National Payment Yield.--The national payment yield 
     shall be as follows:
       ``(1) Wheat, 36.1 bushels per acre.
       ``(2) Corn, 114.2 bushels per acre.
       ``(3) Grain Sorghum, 58.1 bushels per acre.
       ``(4) Barley, 48.7 bushels per acre.
       ``(5) Oats, 49.8 bushels per acre.
       ``(6) Upland cotton, 636 pounds per acre.
       ``(7) Rice, 51.24 hundredweight per acre.
       ``(8) Soybeans, 34.1 bushels per acre.
       ``(9) Peanuts, 1.495 tons per acre.
       ``(e) National Payment Rate.--The national payment rate 
     used to make counter-cyclical payments for a crop year shall 
     be the result of--
       ``(1) the difference between the national target revenue 
     per acre for the covered commodity and the national actual 
     revenue per acre for the covered commodity; divided by
       ``(2) the national payment yield for the covered commodity.
       ``(f) Payment Amount.--If counter-cyclical payments are 
     required to be paid for any of the 2008 through 2012 crop 
     years of a covered commodity, the amount of the counter-
     cyclical payment to be paid to the producers on a farm for 
     that crop year for the covered commodity shall be equal to 
     the product of--
       ``(1) the national payment rate for the covered commodity;
       ``(2) the payment acres of the covered commodity on the 
     farm; and
       ``(3) the payment yield for counter-cyclical payments for 
     the covered commodity.
       ``(g) Time for Payments.--
       ``(1) General rule.--If the Secretary determines that 
     counter-cyclical payments are required to be made under this 
     section for the crop of a covered commodity, the Secretary 
     shall make the counter-cyclical payments for the crop as soon 
     as practicable after the end of the 12-month marketing year 
     for the covered commodity.
       ``(2) Availability of partial payments.--If, before the end 
     of the 12-month marketing year for a covered commodity, the 
     Secretary estimates that counter-cyclical payments will be 
     required for the crop of the covered commodity, the Secretary 
     shall give producers on a farm the option to receive partial 
     payments of the counter-cyclical payment projected to be made 
     for that crop of the covered commodity.
       ``(3) Time for partial payments.--When the Secretary makes 
     partial payments available under paragraph (2) for a covered 
     commodity--
       ``(A) the first partial payment for the crop year shall be 
     made not earlier than October 1, and, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, not later than October 31, of the calendar year 
     in which the crop of the covered commodity is harvested;
       ``(B) the second partial payment shall be made not earlier 
     than February 1 of the next calendar year; and
       ``(C) the final partial payment shall be made as soon as 
     practicable after the end of the 12-month marketing year for 
     the covered commodity.
       ``(4) Amount of partial payments.--
       ``(A) First partial payment.--The first partial payment 
     under paragraph (3) to the producers on a farm may not exceed 
     35 percent of the projected counter-cyclical payment for the 
     covered commodity for the crop year, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Second partial payment.--The second partial payment 
     under paragraph (3) for a covered commodity for a crop year 
     may not exceed the difference between--
       ``(i) 70 percent of the projected counter-cyclical payment 
     (including any revision thereof) for the crop of the covered 
     commodity; and
       ``(ii) the amount of the payment made under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(C) Final payment.--The final payment for the crop year 
     shall be equal to the difference between--
       ``(i) the actual counter-cyclical payment to be made to the 
     producers for the covered commodity for that crop year; and
       ``(ii) the amount of the partial payments made to the 
     producers on a farm under subparagraphs (A) and (B) for that 
     crop year.
       ``(5) Repayment.--Producers on a farm that receive a 
     partial payment under this subsection for a crop year shall 
     repay to the Secretary the amount, if any, by which the total 
     of the partial payments exceed the actual counter-cyclical 
     payment to be made for the covered commodity for that crop 
     year.
       ``(h) De Minimis Payments.--A payment under this section 
     that is less than $25.00 in amount shall not be tendered to a 
     producer on a farm.''.
       In section 1105(a)(1)(D) insert ``, residential'' after 
     ``commercial'' and after the period at the end insert the 
     following: ``In the case of a parcel of land that at anytime 
     subsequent to the enactment of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 is subdivided, transferred 
     to a new owner and used for the construction of a new 
     residence, the base acres for covered commodities for the 
     farm shall be eliminated, unless the owner of such residence 
     receives at least $10,000 of gross income from farming or 
     ranching and the owner of such residence receives gross 
     income from farming or ranching exceeding at least half of 
     their adjusted gross income.'' .
       Section 1201(a)(1) is amended by striking ``For each of'' 
     and all that follows through ``loan commodity, the'' and 
     inserting ``The''
       Section 1201(b) is amended to read as follows:
       (b) Eligible Production.--
       (1) In general.--The producers on a farm shall be eligible 
     for a marketing assistance loan under subsection (a) for any 
     quantity of a loan commodity produced on the farm. In 
     addition, such producers must have beneficial interest, as 
     determined under paragraph (2), in the commodity at the time 
     the commodity is tendered as collateral for such loan.
       (2) Beneficial interest.--In order to have beneficial 
     interest in a commodity, a producer shall:
       (A) be the producer of the commodity;
       (B) possess and maintain ownership and control of the 
     commodity;
       (C) not have received any payment from any party with 
     respect to the commodity; and
       (D) satisfy other criteria, as determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Ineligible production.--A crop of a loan commodity 
     shall be ineligible for a marketing assistance loan if the 
     crop was produced on land of a farm that has been subject to 
     a land transaction covered under section 1101(c).
       Section 1201(e) is amended to read as follows:
       (e) Adjustments of Loans.--
       (1) Adjustment authority.--The Secretary may make 
     appropriate adjustments in the loan rates for any commodity 
     for differences in grade, type, quality, location, and other 
     factors.
       (2) Manner of adjustment.--The adjustments under the 
     authority of this section shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, be made in such manner that the national average 
     loan rate for the commodity will, on the basis of the 
     anticipated incidence of the factors, be equal to the level 
     of support determined as provided in this title.
       (f) Handling and Storage Charges.--All payments for 
     storage, handling or other charges associated with a loan 
     commodity subject to a marketing assistance loan or loan 
     deficiency payment under this subtitle are the responsibility 
     of the producer and shall not be paid by the Secretary.
       Section 1202 is amended to read as follows:

     SEC. 1202. LOAN RATES FOR NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE 
                   LOANS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     loan rate for each crop of a loan commodity shall be equal to 
     the amount determined by multiplying:
       (1) .85; and
       (2) the average of the national average market price 
     received by producers during the five preceding marketing 
     years, excluding the highest and lowest prices determined for 
     such years, as determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Loan Rates.--The loan rate determined under (a) shall 
     not exceed, in the case of--
       (1) wheat, $2.58 per bushel;
       (2) corn, $1.89 per bushel;
       (3) grain sorghum, $1.89 per bushel;
       (4) barley, $1.70 per bushel;
       (5) oats, $1.21 per bushel;
       (6) upland cotton, $0.5192 per pound;
       (7) extra long staple cotton, $0.7965 per pound;

[[Page 20857]]

       (8) rice, $6.50 per hundredweight;
       (9) soybeans, $4.92 per bushel;
       (10) other oilseeds, $0.087 per pound;
       (11) graded wool, $1.00 per pound;
       (12) nongraded wool, $0.40 per pound;
       (13) mohair, $4.20 per pound;
       (14) honey, $0.60 per pound;
       (15) dry peas, $6.22 per hundredweight;
       (16) lentils, $11.72 per hundredweight;
       (17) small chickpeas, $7.43 per hundredweight; and
       (18) peanuts, $350.00 per ton.
       Section 1204(a) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7934) is amended to read as follows:
       (a) General Rule.--
       (1) Repayment of commodity loans.--The Secretary shall 
     permit the producers on a farm to repay a marketing 
     assistance loan under section 1201 for a loan commodity 
     (other than upland cotton, rice, extra long staple cotton, 
     confectionary and each other kind of sunflower seed (other 
     than oil sunflower seed)) at a rate that is the lesser of--
       (A) the loan rate established for the commodity under 
     section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with 
     section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or
       (B) a rate that the Secretary determines will--
       (i) minimize potential loan forfeitures;
       (ii) minimize the accumulation of stocks of the commodity 
     by the Federal Government;
       (iii) minimize the cost incurred by the Federal Government 
     in storing the commodity;
       (iv) allow the commodity produced in the United States to 
     be marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and 
     internationally; and
       (v) minimize discrepancies in marketing loan benefits 
     across State boundaries and across county boundaries.
       (2) Rate adjustments.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) and except as 
     provided in subsection (b), repayment rates established under 
     this section shall be adjusted by the Secretary no more than 
     once every month for all loan commodities.
       (B) Monthly repayment rate.--In establishing the monthly 
     repayment rates with respect to wheat, corn, grain sorghum, 
     barley, oats and soybeans, the rates shall be established by 
     using the rates determined for five days in the previous 
     month as determined in regulations issued by the Secretary, 
     which shall--
       (i) exclude the rates for days that represent the highest 
     and lowest rates for the 5 day period; and
       (ii) use the average of the three remaining rates to 
     establish the monthly repayment rate.
       (3) Date for determining repayment rate.--With respect to 
     the monthly repayment rates established under paragraph (2) 
     and subsection (b) and (c), the rate shall be--
       (A) in the case of a producer who, as determined by the 
     Secretary, loses beneficial interest immediately upon 
     repayment of the loan, the monthly repayment rate determined 
     under paragraph (2) and subsection (b) and (c) that is in 
     effect on the date beneficial interest is lost; and
       (B) in the case of other producers who did not lose 
     beneficial interest upon repayment of the loan, the repayment 
     rate in effect on the earlier of:
       (i) the month in which the loan matures; or
       (ii) the last month of the marketing year established by 
     the Secretary for the commodity.
       (4) Repayment of confectionary and other kinds of sunflower 
     seeds loans.--The Secretary shall permit the producers on a 
     farm to repay a marketing assistance loan under section 1201 
     for confectionary and each other kind of sunflower seed 
     (other than oil sunflower seed) at a rate that is the lesser 
     of--
       (A) the loan rate established for the commodity under 
     section 1202, plus interest (determined in accordance with 
     section 163 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7283)); or
       (B) the repayment rate established for oil sunflower seed.
       (5) Quality grades for dry peas, lentils, and small 
     chickpeas.--The loan repayment rates for dry peas, lentils, 
     and small chickpeas shall be based on the quality grades for 
     the applicable commodity.
       Section 1204(e) is amended to read as follows:
       (e) Adjustment of Prevailing World Market Price for Upland 
     Cotton.--During the period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act through July 31, 2012, the prevailing 
     world market price for upland cotton (adjusted to United 
     States quality and location) established under subsection (d) 
     shall be further adjusted if--
       (1) the adjusted prevailing world market price for upland 
     cotton is less than 115 percent of the loan rate for upland 
     cotton established under section 1202, as determined by the 
     Secretary; and
       (2) the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for 
     the lowest-priced United States growth as quoted for Middling 
     (M) 1 3/32-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Northern Europe 
     price'').
       Section 1204 is amended by striking subsections (f) through 
     (h).
       Section 1205(a) is amended by inserting after paragraph (1) 
     the following new paragraph (and redesignating succeeding 
     paragraphs accordingly):
       (2) Beneficial interest.--At the time producers request 
     payments under this section, the producers must have 
     beneficial interest, as defined in section 1201(b)(2), in the 
     commodity for which such payment is requested.
       Section 1205(c) is amended to read as follows:
       (c) Payment Rate.--
       (1) Loan commodities.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to all loan commodities 
     except extra long staple cotton, the payment rate shall be 
     determined as of the day the producer loses beneficial 
     interest in the commodity.
       (B) Formula.--The payment rate under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be the amount that equals the difference between--
       (i) the loan rate established under section 1202 for the 
     loan commodity; and
       (ii) the monthly repayment rate determined for the 
     commodity under section 1204.
       (2) Unshorn pelts.---In the case of unshorn pelts, the 
     payment rate shall be the amount that equals the difference 
     between--
       (A) the loan rate established under section 1202 for 
     ungraded wool: and
       (B) the rate at which ungraded wool may be redeemed under 
     section 1204.
       (3) Hay, silage, feed and similar uses.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of a commodity that would 
     otherwise be eligible to be pledged as collateral for a 
     marketing assistance loan at the time of harvest of the 
     commodity, but cannot be pledged due to the normal commercial 
     state of the commodity, the payment rate shall be the average 
     of the monthly repayment rates established for the first 
     three months of the marketing year of the commodity, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Inclusions.--Commodities covered by subparagraph (A) 
     shall be determined by the Secretary, and shall include hay, 
     silage, cracked corn, and corn stored in a commingled manner 
     by feedlots.
       In section 1206(d) strike ``A 2002 through 2007 crop of'' 
     and inserting ``A crop of''.
       In section 1207 strike subsection (b) and redesignate 
     subsection (c) as subsection (b).
       Section 1208 of Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002 (7 U.S.C. 7938) is amended
       (1) by striking the section;
       (2) by redesignating section 1209 as section 1208;
       (3) in section 1208 (as redesignated in paragraph (2)) (A) 
     in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``For each of the 2002 
     through 2007 crops of'' and inserting ``For each crop of'' 
     (B) in subsection (b) by striking ``For each of the 2002 
     through 2007 crops of'' and inserting ``For each crop of''; 
     and (C) by striking subsection (d).
       In subtitle C strike sections 1301, 1302, and 1303 and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 1301. SUGAR PROGRAM.

       Section 156(j) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272(j)) is amended by striking 
     ``2007'' and inserting ``2012''.

     SEC. 1302. FLEXIBLE MARKETING ALLOTMENTS FOR SUGAR.

       Section 359b(a)(1) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
     1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(a)(1)) is amended in the matter 
     preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ``2007'' and inserting 
     ``2012''.
       Section 1409 is amended to read as follows:

     SEC. 1409. FEDERAL DAIRY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--The secretary of agriculture shall 
     establish a commission to be known as the ``federal dairy 
     commission'', in this section referred to as the 
     ``commission'', which shall conduct a comprehensive review 
     and evaluation of--
       (1) the current Federal and non-Federal milk marketing 
     order systems;
       (2) the milk income loss contracting program;
       (3) the forward contracting program;
       (4) the 9.90 dairy price support system; and
       (5) programs in the European Union and other major dairy 
     exporting countries that may have a trade distorting effect.
       (b) Element of Review and Evaluation.--As part of the 
     review and evaluation under this section, the commission 
     shall evaluate how well the programs accomplish the following 
     goals, providing legislative and regulatory recommendations 
     for achieving these goals--
       (1) ensuring the competitiveness of diary products;
       (2) enhancing the competitiveness of American diary 
     products in world markets;
       (3) increasing the responsiveness of dairy programs to 
     market forces;
       (4) ensuring an adequate safety net for dairy farmers;
       (5) streamlining, simplifying, and expediting the 
     administration of these programs; and
       (6) continuing to serve the interest of the public, diary 
     processors, and diary farmers;
       (7) operating in a manner to minimize costs to taxpayers;
       (8) ensuring that we meet our trade obligations; and
       (9) ensuring the safety of our dairy supply.
       (c) Membership.--

[[Page 20858]]

       (1) Composition.--The commission shall consist of 16 
     members and shall include the following representation:
       (A) Geographical diversity.
       (B) Diversity in size of operation.
       (C) At least one State with a Federal marketing order.
       (D) At least one State with a state marketing order.
       (E) At least one State with no marketing order.
       (F) At least two dairy producers.
       (G) At least two dairy processors.
       (H) At least one trade experts.
       (I) At least one State official.
       (J) At least one Federal official.
       (K) At least one nongovernmental organization.
       (L) At least one economist.
       (M) At least one representative of a land grant university.
       (2) Appointments.--Within 3 months of the date of 
     enactment, commission members shall be appointed as follows:
       (A) Two members appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, in consultation with the Chair and ranking member of 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives.
       (B) Two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, in consultation with the Chair and ranking 
     member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
     Forestry of the Senate.
       (C) Fourteen members appointed by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       (3) Chair.--The commission shall elect one of its members 
     to serve as chairperson during the duration of the 
     commission's proceedings.
       (4) Vacancy.--Any vacancy occurring before the termination 
     of the commission shall be filled in the same manner as the 
     original appointment.
       (5) Compensation.--Members of the commission shall serve 
     without compensation, but shall be reimbursed by the 
     Secretary from existing budgetary resources for necessary and 
     reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of the duties 
     of the commission.
       (d) Report.--Not later than three years after the date of 
     establishment of the commission, the commission shall submit 
     to Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture a report setting 
     forth the results of the review and evaluation conducted 
     under this section, including recommendations regarding 
     legislative and regulatory options for accomplishing the 
     goals under subsection (__). The report findings shall 
     reflect, to the greatest extent possible, a consensus opinion 
     of the commission members, but shall include majority and 
     minority findings and their supporters regarding those 
     matters for which consensus was not reached.
       (e) Advisory Nature.--The commission is wholly advisory in 
     nature and bound by the requirements of the FACA.
       (f) No Effect on Existing Programs.--The Secretary shall 
     not allow the existence of the commission to impede, delay, 
     or otherwise affect any regulatory decisionmaking.
       (g) Administrative Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide 
     administrative support to the commission, and expend such 
     funds as necessary from existing budget authority to carry 
     out this responsibility.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (i) Termination.--The commission shall terminate 60 days 
     after submission of the report under subparagraph (D), during 
     which time it will remain available to answer question of 
     Congress and the Secretary regarding the report.
       Strike sections 1503 and 1504 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1503. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

       Section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1308) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Entity.--
       ``(A) In general.--the term `entity' means.--
       ``(i) an organization that (subject to the requirements of 
     this section and section 1001A) is eligible to receive a 
     payment under a provision of law referred to in subsection 
     (b) or (c);
       ``(ii) a corporation, joint stock company, association, 
     limited partnership, limited liability company, limited 
     liability partnership, charitable organization, estate, 
     irrevocable trust, a grantor of a revocable trust, or other 
     similar entity (as determined by the Secretary); and
       ``(iii) an organization that is participating in a farming 
     operation as a partner in a general partnership or as a 
     participant in a joint venture.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--Except in section 1001F, the term 
     `entity' does not include a general partnership or joint 
     venture.
       ``(C) Estates.--In defining the term entities as it will 
     apply to estates, the Secretary shall ensure that fair and 
     equitable treatment is given to estates and the beneficiaries 
     thereof.
       ``(D) Irrevocable trusts.--In defining the term entities as 
     it will apply to irrevocable trusts, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that irrevocable trusts are legitimate entities and 
     have not been created for the purpose of avoiding the payment 
     limitation.
       ``(2) Individual.--The term `individual' means--
       ``(A) a natural person, and any minor child of the natural 
     person (as determined by the Secretary), who, subject to the 
     requirements of this section and section 1001A, is eligible 
     to receive a payment under a provision of law referred to in 
     subsection (b), (c), or (d); and
       ``(B) a natural person participating in a farming operation 
     as a partner in a general partnership, a participant in a 
     joint venture, a grantor of a revocable trust, or a 
     participant in a similar entity (as determined by the 
     Secretary).
       ``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.''.
       (2) by striking subsections (b) through (f) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Limitation on Direct Payments.--The total amount of 
     direct payments that an individual or entity may receive, 
     directly or indirectly, during any crop year under subtitle A 
     or C of title I of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7911 et seq.) for 1 or more covered 
     commodities or peanuts shall not exceed $20,000.
       ``(c) Limitation on Counter-Cyclical Payments.--The total 
     amount of counter-cyclical payments that an individual or 
     entity may receive, directly or indirectly, during any crop 
     year under subtitle A or C of title I of the Farm Security 
     and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7911 et seq.) for 
     1 or more covered commodities or peanuts shall not exceed 
     $30,000.
       ``(d) Limitations on Marketing Loan Gains, Loan Deficiency 
     Payments, and Commodity Certificate Transactions.--The total 
     amount of the following gains and payments that an individual 
     or entity may receive during any crop year may not exceed 
     $75,000.
       ``(1)(A) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a 
     marketing assistance loan for 1 or more loan commodities or 
     peanuts under subtitle B of title I of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) at a 
     lower level than the original loan rate established for the 
     loan commodity under that subtitle.
       ``(B) In the case of settlement of a marketing assistance 
     loan for 1 or more loan commodities under that subtitle by 
     forfeiture, the amount by which the loan amount exceeds the 
     repayment amount for the loan if the loan had been settled by 
     repayment instead of forfeiture.
       ``(2) Any loan deficiency payments received for 1 or more 
     loan commodities under that subtitle.
       ``(3) Any gain realized from the use of a commodity 
     certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation for 1 
     or more loan commodities, as determined by the Secretary, 
     including the use of a certificate for the settlement of a 
     marketing assistance loan made under that subtitle or section 
     1307 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 7957).
       ``(e) Payment to Individuals and Entities.--Notwithstanding 
     subsections (b) through (d), an individual or entity, 
     directly or indirectly through all ownership interests of the 
     individual or entity from all sources, may received payments 
     for a fiscal or corresponding crop year up to but not 
     exceeding twice the limitations established under subsections 
     (b) through (d).
       ``(f) Single Farming Operation.--Notwithstanding 
     subsections (b) through (d), subject to paragraph (2), an 
     individual or entity that participates only in a single 
     farming operation and receives, directly or indirectly, any 
     payment or gain covered by this section through the farming 
     operation, may receive payments for a fiscal or corresponding 
     crop year up to but not exceeding twice the limitations 
     established under subsections (b) through (d).
       ``(g) Spousal Equity.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (b), (c), 
     (d), (e) and (f) except as provided in paragraph (2), if an 
     individual and the spouse of the individual are covered by 
     paragraph (2) and receive, directly or indirectly, any 
     payment or gain covered by this section, the total amount of 
     payments or gains (as applicable) covered by this section 
     that the individual and spouse may jointly receive during any 
     crop year may not exceed an amount equal to twice the 
     applicable dollar amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), 
     and (d).
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Separate farming operations.--In the case of a 
     married couple in which each spouse, before the marriage, was 
     separately engaged in an unrelated farming operation, each 
     spouse shall be treated as a separate individual with respect 
     to a farming operation brought into the marriage by a spouse, 
     subject to the condition that the farming operation shall 
     remain a separate farming operation, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Election to receive separate payments.--A married 
     couple may elect to receive payments separately in the name 
     of each spouse if the total amount of payments and benefits 
     described in subsections (b), (c), and (d) that the married 
     couple receives, directly or indirectly, does not exceed an 
     amount equal to twice the applicable dollar amounts specified 
     in those subsections.

[[Page 20859]]

       ``(h) Public Schools.--The provisions of this section that 
     limit payments to any individual or entity shall not be 
     applicable to land owned by a public school district or land 
     owned by a State that is used to maintain a public school.
       ``(i) Time Limits; Reliance.--Regulations of the Secretary 
     shall establish time limits for the various steps involved 
     with notice, hearing, decision, and the appeals procedure in 
     order to ensure expeditious handling and settlement of 
     payment limitation disputes. Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, actions taken by an individual or other 
     entity in good faith on action or advice of an authorized 
     representative of the Secretary may be accepted as meeting 
     the requirement under this section or section 1001A, to the 
     extent the Secretary deems it desirable in order to provide 
     fair and equitable treatment.''.

     SEC. 1504. PAYMENTS LIMITED TO ACTIVE FARMERS.

       Section 1001A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1308-1) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section designation and heading and all 
     that follows through the end of subsection (a) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) Substantive Change.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of the application of 
     limitations under this section, the Secretary shall not 
     approve any change in a farming operation that otherwise 
     would increase the number of individuals or entities (as 
     defined in section 1001(a)) to which the limitations under 
     this section apply, unless the Secretary determines that the 
     change is bona fide and substantive.
       ``(2) Family members.--For the purpose of paragraph (1), 
     the addition of a family member (as defined in subsection 
     (b)(2)(A)) to a farming operation under the criteria 
     established under subsection (b)(3)(B) shall be considered to 
     be a bona fide and substantive change in the farming 
     operation.
       ``(3) Primary control.--To prevent a farm from reorganizing 
     in a manner that is inconsistent with the purposes of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary to simultaneously 
     attribute payments for a farming operation to more than one 
     individual or entity, including the individual or entity that 
     exercises primary control over the farming operation, 
     including to respond to --
       ``(A)(i) any instance in which ownership of a farming 
     operation is transferred to an individual or entity under an 
     arrangement that provides for the sale or exchange of any 
     asset or ownership interest in 1 or more entities at less 
     than fair market value; and
       ``(ii) the transferor is provided preferential rights to 
     repurchase the asset or interest at less than fair market 
     value; or
       ``(B) a sale or exchange of any asset or ownership interest 
     in 1 or more entities under an arrangement under which rights 
     to exercise control over the asset or interest are retained, 
     directly or indirectly, by the transferor.''
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive, directly or 
     indirectly, payments or benefits described as being subject 
     to limitation in subsection (b) or (c) of section 1001 with 
     respect to a particular farming operation, an individual or 
     entity (as defined in section 1001(a)) shall be actively 
     engaged in farming with respect to the farming operation, in 
     accordance with paragraphs (2), (3), and (4).'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Active personal management.--The term `active 
     personal management' means with respect to an individual, 
     administrative duties carried out by the individual for a 
     farming operation--

       ``(I) that are personally provided by the individual on a 
     regular, substantial, and continuing basis; and
       ``(II) relating to the supervision and direction of--

       ``(aa) activities and labor involved in the farming 
     operation; and
       ``(bb) onsite services directly related and necessary to 
     the farming operation.
       ``(ii) Family member.--The term `family member', with 
     respect to an individual participating in a farming 
     operation, means an individual who is related to the 
     individual as a lineal ancestor, a lineal descendant, or a 
     sibling (including a spouse of such and individual).
       ``(B) Active engagement.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (3), for purposes of paragraph (1), the following shall 
     apply:
       ``(i) An individual shall be considered to be actively 
     engaged in farming with respect to a farming operation if--

       ``(I) the individual makes a significant contribution, as 
     determined under subparagraph (E) (based on the total value 
     of the farming operation), to the farming operation of--

       ``(aa) capital, equipment, or land; and
       ``(bb) personal labor and active personal management;

       ``(II) the share of the individual of the profits or losses 
     from the farming operation is commensurate with the 
     contributions of the individual to the operation; and
       ``(III) a contribution of the individual is at risk.

       ``(ii) An entity shall be considered to be actively engaged 
     in farming with respect to a farming operation if--

       ``(I) the entity makes a significant contribution, as 
     determined under subparagraph (E) (based on the total value 
     of the farming operation), to the farming operation of 
     capital, equipment, or land;
       ``(II)(aa) the stockholders or members that collectively 
     own at least 51 percent of the combined beneficial interest 
     in the entity each make a significant contribution of 
     personal labor and active personal management to the 
     operation; or
       ``(bb) in the case of an entity in which all of the 
     beneficial interests are held by family members, any 
     stockholder or member (or household comprised of a 
     stockholder or member and the spouse of the stockholder or 
     member) who owns at least 10 percent of the beneficial 
     interest in the entity makes a significant contribution of 
     personal labor or active personal management; and
       ``(III) the entity meets the requirements of subclauses 
     (II) and (III) of clause (i).

       ``(C) Entities making significant contributions.--If a 
     general partnership, joint venture, or similar entity (as 
     determined by the Secretary) separately makes a significant 
     contribution (based on the total value of the farming 
     operation involved) of capital, equipment, or land, the 
     partners or members making a significant contribution of 
     personal labor or active personal management and meeting the 
     standards provided in subclauses (II) and (III) of 
     subparagraph (B)(i), shall be considered to be actively 
     engaged in farming with respect to the farming operation''; 
     and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Significant contribution of personal labor or active 
     personal management.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for purposes of 
     subparagraph (B), an individual shall be considered to be 
     providing, on behalf of the individual or an entity, a 
     significant contribution of personal labor or active personal 
     management, if the total contribution of personal labor and 
     active personal management is at least equal to the lesser 
     of--

       ``(I) 1,000 hours; and
       ``(II) a period of time equal to--

       ``(aa) 50 percent of the commensurate share of the total 
     number of hours of personal labor and active personal 
     management required to conduct the farming operation; or
       ``(bb) in the case of a stockholder or member (or household 
     comprised of a stockholder or member and the spouse of the 
     stockholder or member) that owns at least 10 percent of the 
     beneficial interest in an entity in which all of the 
     beneficial interests are held by family members, 50 percent 
     of the commensurate share of hours of the personal labor and 
     active personal management of all family members required to 
     conduct the farming operation.
       ``(ii) Minimum labor hours.--For the purpose of clause (i), 
     the minimum number of labor hours required to produce a 
     commodity shall be equal to the number of hours that would be 
     necessary to conduct a farming operation for the production 
     of each commodity that is comparable in size to the 
     commensurate share of an individual or entity in the farming 
     operation for the production of the commodity, based on the 
     minimum number of hours per acre required to produce the 
     commodity in the State in which the farming operation is 
     located, as determined by the Secretary.''
       (C) in paragraph (3) by striking subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     and (C) and inserting the following:
       ``(A) Landowners.--An individual or entity that is a 
     landowner contributing owned land, and that meets the 
     requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i), if as determined by the Secretary--
       ``(i) the landowner share-rents the land at a rate that is 
     usual and customary; and
       ``(ii) the share received by the landowner is commensurate 
     with the share of the crop or income received as rent.
       ``(B) Family members.--With respect to a farming operation 
     conducted by individuals who are family members, or an entity 
     the majority of whose stockholders or members are family 
     members, an adult family member who makes a significant 
     contribution (based on the total value of the farming 
     operation) of active personal management or personal labor 
     and, with respect to such contribution, who meets the 
     requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i).
       ``(C) Sharecroppers.--A sharecropper who makes a 
     significant contribution of personal labor to the farming 
     operation and, with respect to such contribution, who meets 
     the requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i), and who was receiving payments from the landowner 
     as a sharecropper prior to the effective date of this Act.''
       (D) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``persons'' and 
     inserting ``individuals and entities'';
       (ii) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``persons'' and inserting ``individuals and entities''; and
       (iii) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:

[[Page 20860]]

       ``(B) Other individuals and entities.--Any other individual 
     or entity, or class of individuals or entities, that fails to 
     meet the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3), as 
     determined by the Secretary.''
       (E) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs 
     (6) and (7), respectively;
       (F) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Personal labor and active personal management.--No 
     stockholder or member may provide personal labor or active 
     personal management to meet the requirements of this 
     subsection for individuals or entities that collectively 
     receive, directly or indirectly, an amount equal to more than 
     twice the applicable limits under subsections (b), (c), and 
     (d) of section 1001.''
       (G) In paragraph (6) (as redesignated by subparagraph (e))
       (i) in the first sentence--

       (I) by striking ``A person'' and inserting ``An individual 
     or entity''; and
       (II) by striking ``such person'' and inserting ``the 
     individual or entity''; and

       (ii) by striking the second sentence; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Notification by Entities.--To facilitate the 
     administration of this section, each entity that receives 
     payments or benefits described as being subject to limitation 
     in subsection (b), (c), or (d) of section 1001 with respect 
     to a particular farming operation shall--
       ``(1) notify each individual or other entity that acquires 
     or holds a beneficial interest in the farming operation of 
     the requirements and limitations under this section; and
       ``(2) provide to the Secretary, at such times and in such 
     manner as the Secretary may require, the name and social 
     security number of each individual, or the name and taxpayer 
     identification number of each entity, that holds or acquires 
     such a beneficial interest.
       ``(4) Four levels of attribution for embedded entities.--
       ``(A) In general.--Attribution of payments made to legal 
     entities shall be traced through four levels of ownership in 
     entities.
       ``(B) First level.--Any payments made to a legal entity (a 
     first-tier entity) that is owned in whole or in part by a 
     person shall be attributed to the person in an amount that 
     represents the direct ownership in the first-tier entity by 
     the person.
       ``(C) Second level.--Any payments made to a first-tier 
     entity that is owned in whole or in part by another legal 
     entity (a second-tier entity) shall be attributed to the 
     second-tier entity in proportion to the second-tier entity's 
     ownership in the first-tier entity. If the second-tier entity 
     is owned in whole or in part by a person, the amount of the 
     payment made to the first-tier entity shall be attributed to 
     the person in the amount that represents the indirect 
     ownership in the first-tier entity by the person.
       ``(D) Third and fourth levels.--The Secretary shall 
     attribute payments at the third and fourth tiers of ownership 
     in the same manner as specified in subparagraph (C) unless 
     the fourth-tier of ownership is that of a fourth-tier entity 
     and not that of a person, in which case the Secretary shall 
     reduce the amount of the payment to be made to the first-tier 
     entity in the amount that represents the indirect ownership 
     in the first-tier entity by the fourth-tier entity.''.

     SEC. 1505. SCHEMES OR DEVICES.

       Section 1001B of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1308-2) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``if'';
       (2) in subsection (a) (as designated by paragraph (1)), by 
     striking ``person'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``individual or entity''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Fraud.--If fraud is committed by an individual or 
     entity in connection with a scheme or device to evade, or 
     that has the purpose of evading, section 1001, 1001A, or 
     1001C, the individual or entity shall be ineligible to 
     receive farm program payments described as being subject to 
     limitation in subsection (b), (c), or (d) of section 1001 
     for--
       ``(1) the crop year for which the scheme or device is 
     adopted; and
       ``(2) the succeeding 5 crop years.
       ``(c) Joint and Several Liability.--All individuals and 
     entities who participate in a scheme or device described in 
     subsection (a) or (b) shall be jointly and severally liable 
     for any and all overpayments resulting from the scheme or 
     device, and subject to program ineligibility resulting from 
     the scheme or device, regardless of whether a particular 
     individual or entity was or was not a payment recipient.
       ``(d) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may fully or 
     partially release an individual or entity from liability for 
     repayment of program proceeds under subsection (a)(2) if the 
     individual or entity cooperates with the Department of 
     Agriculture by disclosing a scheme or device to evade section 
     1001, 1001A, or 1001C or any other provision of law 
     administered by the Secretary that imposes a payment 
     limitation. The decision of the Secretary under this 
     subsection is vested in the sole discretion of the 
     Secretary.''.

     SEC. 1506. FOREIGN INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES MADE INELIGIBLE 
                   FOR PROGRAM BENEFITS.

       Section 1001C of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1308-3) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``PERSONS'' and 
     inserting ``INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``person'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``individual''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Corporation or 
     Other''; and
       (B) by striking ``a corporation or other entity'' and 
     inserting ``an entity''.

     SEC. 1507. ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME LIMITATION.

       (a) Extension of Adjusted Gross Income Limitation.--
       (b) Modification of Limitation.--Section 1001D(b) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(1) Caps.--
       ``(A) Upper limit.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an individual or entity shall not be eligible to receive 
     any benefit described in paragraph (2) during a crop year and 
     no benefits shall be provided on land owned by an individual 
     or entity if the average adjusted gross income of the entity 
     or individual combined with the income of the individual"s 
     spouse exceeds $250,000.
       ``(B) Producer exemption.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, an individual or entity shall not be 
     eligible to receive any benefit described in paragraph (2) 
     and no benefits shall be provided on land owned by an 
     individual or entity during a crop year if the average 
     adjusted gross income of the entity or individual combined 
     with the income of the individual's spouse exceeds $125,000, 
     unless not less than 66.66 percent of the average adjusted 
     gross income of the entity or individual combined with the 
     income of the individuals spouse is derived from farming, 
     ranching, or forestry operations, as determined by the 
     Secretary.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Income derived from farming, ranching or forestry 
     operations.--In determining what portion of the average 
     adjusted gross income of an individual or entity is derived 
     from farming, ranching, or forestry operations, the Secretary 
     shall include income derived from the following:
       ``(A) The production of crops, livestock, or unfinished raw 
     forestry products.
       ``(B) The sale, including the sale of easements and 
     development rights, of farm, ranch, or forestry land or water 
     rights.
       ``(C) The sale, but not as a dealer, of equipment purchased 
     to conduct farm, ranch, or forestry operations when the 
     equipment is otherwise subject to depreciation expense.
       ``(D) The rental of land used for farming, ranching, or 
     forestry operations.
       ``(E) The provision of production inputs and services to 
     farmers, ranchers, and foresters.
       ``(F) The processing, storing, and transporting of farm, 
     ranch, and forestry commodities.
       ``(G) The sale of land that has been used for 
     agriculture.''.

     SEC. 1508. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement 
     this Act and the amendment made to this Act.
       (b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and 
     administration of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall be made without regard to
       (1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to 
     notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in 
     rulemaking; and
       (3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
       (c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority 
     provided under section 808 of title 5, 21 United States Code.
       Strike section 1512 (title I, page 109, beginning line 1), 
     relating to mandatory reporting for peanuts
       At the end of title I insert the following:

                  Subtitle F--Risk Management Accounts

     SEC. 1601. ESTABLISHMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish optional 
     Risk Management Accounts for all eligible farmers and offer 
     incentives to encourage farmers to save money during years of 
     high profits to use during years of low profits, and for 
     retirement.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) Operator.--The term ``operator'' means an individual or 
     entity that--
       (A) either--
       (i) during each of the preceding 5 taxable years, filed a 
     schedule F of the Federal income tax returns or a comparable 
     tax form related to the agricultural operations of the 
     individual or entity, as approved by the Secretary; or
       (ii) is a beginning farmer or rancher, as determined by the 
     Secretary; and

[[Page 20861]]

       (B) earned--
       (i) at least $10,000 in average adjusted gross revenue for 
     the preceding 5 taxable years;
       (ii) less than such amount, but is a limited resource 
     farmer or rancher, as determined by the Secretary; or
       (iii) at least $10,000 in estimated income from all 
     agricultural operations for the applicable year, as 
     determined by the Secretary, and is a beginning farmer or 
     rancher under subparagraph (A)(ii).
       (2) Farm.--The term ``farm'' is land used for production of 
     crops, livestock and other agricultural products of which the 
     operator has more than de-minimis control or ownership.
       (3) Adjusted gross revenue.--The term ``adjusted gross 
     revenue'' means the adjusted gross income as determined by 
     the Secretary, from the sale of agricultural crops grown, 
     dairy products produced, and livestock raised as part of an 
     agricultural operation--
       (A) by taking into account gross receipts from the sale of 
     agricultural crops, eligible livestock and dairy products on 
     the agricultural operation, including insurance indemnities;
       (B) by including all farm payments paid by the Secretary or 
     any other government entity for the agricultural operation 
     related to agricultural crops, eligible livestock and dairy 
     products;
       (C) by deducting the cost or basis of livestock or other 
     items purchased for resale, such as feeder livestock, on the 
     agricultural operation;
       (D) by excluding revenues that do not arise from the sale 
     of crops grown, dairy products produced or livestock raised 
     on an agricultural operation, such as revenues associated 
     with the packaging, merchandising, marketing and reprocessing 
     of the agricultural product beyond that typically undertaken 
     by a producer of the crop, dairy products or livestock as 
     determined by the Secretary;
       (E) by using with such adjustments, additions and 
     additional documentation as the Secretary determines is 
     appropriate, information presented on--
       (i) a schedule F of the Federal income tax returns of the 
     producer; or
       (ii) a comparable tax form related to the agricultural 
     operations of the producer, as approved by the Secretary.
       (c) Establishment.--Any operator of a farm, including dairy 
     farms and ``specialty crop'' farms, may establish a Risk 
     Management Account in the name of the farm to be jointly 
     administered by the Secretary and a private banking 
     institution, credit union, or other approved lender.
       (d) Voluntary Contributions.--An operator of a farm may 
     make voluntary contributions to their Risk Management Account 
     up to the limits specified in section 219(b)(5)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
       (e) Incentives for Contributions.--For producers eligible 
     for Direct Payments under Subtitle A of this Act, for each 
     dollar contributed to the account by the producer, up to the 
     full amount of the Direct Payment received in that year, the 
     Secretary shall make a matching contribution of 5 percent.
       (f) Withdrawals.--An operator who establishes an account 
     may withdraw funds under the following conditions and 
     amounts:
       (1) In a year when the farm's adjusted gross revenue is 
     less than 95 percent of the five-year average adjusted gross 
     revenue, the producer may withdraw funds up to the amount of 
     the difference.
       (2) Up to 10 percent of the account balance for investments 
     in rural enterprises that contribute to the agricultural 
     economy, as defined by the Secretary, no more than once in 
     any five-year period.
       (3) When withdrawals are necessary to protect the solvency 
     of the farm, as determined by the Secretary.
       (4) To purchase revenue or crop insurance.
       (5) Without restriction once the farmer has retired from 
     farming, as determined by the farmer's no longer filing a 
     Schedule F Income Tax Return.
       (g) Violations.--If an operator fails to meet the 
     conditions established for a contribution to an account, the 
     operator shall refund to the Secretary an amount equal to the 
     contribution in any fiscal year in which a violation 
     occurred.
       (h) Sale or Transfer.--If an operator sells or transfers a 
     farm, the operator may elect to--
       (1) transfer all or a portion of the account to another 
     farm in which the operator has a controlling ownership 
     interest or acquires a controlling ownership interest within 
     two years of the sale or transfer of the original 
     agricultural operation;
       (2) transfer the account to the purchaser of the farm if 
     the operator is not already a holder of an account; or
       (3) rollover the account into an Individual Retirement 
     Account pursuant to section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 of the operator, if the operator is a natural person, 
     or, if the operator is an entity, into the accounts of any 
     natural person who has a substantial beneficial interest in 
     the farm that is the subject of the account.
       (i) Conservation Compliance.--Any operator and any holder 
     of a beneficial interest in a farm subject to an account 
     shall--
       (1) comply with applicable conservation requirements under 
     subtitle B of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3811 et seq.); and
       (2) comply with applicable wetland conservation 
     requirements under subtitle C of title XII of that Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3821 et seq.).

       [CONSERVATION TITLE]

       In the matter proposed to be inserted by section 2103 
     strike ``2012'' and inserting ``2009''.
       [Section 2104 is amended in subsection (b) by striking ``by 
     striking paragraph (1)'' and all that follows through 
     ``2012'' and inserting in paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``2,000,000 acres'' and inserting ``5,000,000 acres''.]
       In section 2104 redesignate subsections (d) and (e) as 
     subsections (e) and (f) and insert after subsection (c) the 
     following:
       (d) Grassland Reserve Program.--Section 1241(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the 
     grassland reserve program under subchapter C of chapter 2''.
       Add at the end of section 2104 insert the following:
       (e) Extension and Funding.--Section 1241(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the 
     grassland reserve program under subchapter C of chapter 2.''.
       (f) Enrollment Goals.--Section 1238N(b) of such Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3838N(b)) is amended in paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``2,000,000 acres'' and inserting ``5,000,000 acres''.
       In the matter to be inserted by section 2301 strike 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E) and insert the following:
       (A) $20,000,000.
       (B) $40,000,000.
       (C) $50,000,000.
       (D) $90,000,000.
       (E) ``$100,000,000.
       At the end of subtitle C of title I insert the following:

     SEC. 2303. COMMUNITY FORESTS AND OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States Forest Service projects that 44 
     million acres of privately owned forested land will be 
     developed in the United States by 2030, including many of the 
     most important remaining forested parcels within and adjacent 
     to communities.
       (2) There is an urgent need to assist local governments in 
     raising the funds necessary to purchase the most important of 
     these parcels of privately owned forested land as they come 
     up for sale.
       (3) The breakup of forested land into smaller parcels has 
     resulted in an increasing number of owners of privately owned 
     forested land, but many of these owners have little or no 
     experience in forest stewardship.
       (4) In fast growing communities of all sizes across the 
     United States, the remaining parcels of privately owned 
     forested land play an essential role in protecting public 
     water supplies, which has lead many local governments to 
     purchase these lands for municipal or county ownership.
       (5) Rising rates of obesity and other public health 
     problems related to inactivity have been shown to be 
     ameliorated by improving public access to safe and pleasing 
     areas for outdoor recreation, which has lead many local 
     governments to purchase lands for recreational purposes under 
     municipal or county ownership.
       (6) Across the United States, many communities of diverse 
     types and sizes are deriving significant financial benefit 
     from owning and managing municipal or county forestlands as a 
     source of local revenue that also contributes significantly 
     to the health of the forest products economy at the local and 
     national levels.
       (7) The access to privately owned forested land for 
     hunting, fishing, and trapping has declined, and the number 
     of persons participating in these activities has likewise 
     declined, as these lands are divided into smaller parcels and 
     more owners of privately owned forested land post their land 
     against public use, which has lead many local governments to 
     purchase forestlands to guarantee access for hunting, 
     fishing, and trapping.
       (8) There is a national interest and an urgent need to 
     assist local governments in raising the funds necessary to 
     purchase important privately owned forested land that will 
     maintain the diverse public benefits of forestlands close to 
     or within all manner of communities nationwide, from close-
     knit rural communities to fast growing suburban and exurban 
     areas.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Cooperative Forestry 
     Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 21. FORESTS AND OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment and Purpose.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall establish within the Forest Service a 
     program to be known as the `Community Forests and Open Space 
     Conservation Program' (in this section referred to as the 
     `Program') for the purpose of assisting local governments in 
     a State selected to participate in the Program to acquire 
     forested land that--

[[Page 20862]]

       ``(1) is economically, culturally, and environmentally 
     important to the locality in which the land is located;
       ``(2) is threatened by conversion to non-forest uses; and
       ``(3) will conserve public access to and benefit from the 
     land for a wide variety of public purposes, including model 
     forest stewardship, sustainable timber production, forest-
     based educational and cultural activities, wildlife habitat 
     protection, watershed protection, or outdoor recreation, 
     including hunting and fishing.
       ``(b) Selection of Participating States.--
       ``(1) Selection.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall select at 
     least one State in each of the New England, Mid-Atlantic, 
     Midwest, South, West, and Pacific Northwest regions of the 
     United States to participate in the Program. The Secretary 
     shall make the selections from among applications submitted 
     by willing States. No State shall be compelled to participate 
     in the Program.
       ``(2) Implementation.--Authority for implementation of the 
     Program in a participating State shall lie with the State 
     forester, equivalent State official, or other appropriate 
     State natural resource management agency designated by the 
     Governor of the State.
       ``(c) Eligibility and Ranking Criteria.--
       ``(1) State assessment of need.--Each participating State 
     shall prepare an assessment of need that identifies the 
     geographic areas within the State that will be the focus of 
     land acquisition activities under the Program and priority 
     objectives for conservation, based on conditions and public 
     needs in the State. This requirement may be satisfied by 
     inclusion of the assessment as part of an integrated State-
     wide forest planning process for application of Federal 
     programs in the State.
       ``(2) Establishment of criteria.--Not later than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary shall establish eligibility and ranking criteria 
     for the selection of land acquisition proposals to receive 
     funding under the Program. The Secretary shall establish the 
     criteria in consultation with State Forest Stewardship 
     Advisory Committees, State Urban and Community Forestry 
     Advisory Committees, and similar organizations.
       ``(3) Priorities.--In establishing the eligibility and 
     ranking criteria under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 
     give priority to the acquisition of lands that--
       ``(A) meet identified local open space and natural resource 
     needs, as expressed in town plans, regional plans, or other 
     relevant local planning documents;
       ``(B) can be effectively managed to model good forest 
     stewardship for private landowners and support forest-based 
     educational programs, including vocational education in 
     forestry;
       ``(C) provide significant protection of public water 
     supplies or other waterways;
       ``(D) can offer long-term economic benefit to communities 
     through forestry;
       ``(E) contain important wildlife habitat;
       ``(F) provide convenient public access for outdoor 
     recreation, including hunting and fishing; and
       ``(G) are most threatened with conversion to nonforest 
     uses.
       ``(d) Application and Ranking of Proposals.--
       ``(1) Preparation and contents.--A local government in a 
     participating State may prepare an application for assistance 
     under the Program in the acquisition of forested land within 
     the geographic program focus area in the State identified 
     under subsection (c)(1). The application shall include 
     certification by the appropriate unit or units of local 
     government that the proposed land acquisition is consistent 
     with any comprehensive plans for development adopted by the 
     unit of local government and include such other information 
     as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(2) Submission.--Participating States shall rank all 
     applications according to priority and submit the 
     applications to the Secretary at such times and in such form 
     as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(3) National list.--The Secretary shall maintain a 
     national list of all submitted applications, ranked according 
     to the criteria established pursuant to subsection (c).
       ``(e) Ownership of Land.--
       ``(1) Government ownership.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), all land acquired in whole or in part using 
     funds provided under the Program shall be owned in fee simple 
     by a local government, such as a municipality or county.
       ``(2) Nonprofit organization ownership.--Upon the request 
     of a participating State, designated nonprofit organizations 
     operating within that State may also own land acquired using 
     funds provided under the Program, subject to the condition 
     that the land is open for public access consistent with the 
     purposes and criteria of the Program.
       ``(3) Effect of violation.--If the owner of land acquired 
     in whole or in part using funds provided under the Program 
     sells the land, the owner shall reimburse the Secretary for 
     the full amount of the funds provided under the Program, plus 
     a penalty equal to 50 percent of the sale price or appraised 
     value of the land at the time of the sale, whichever is 
     greater. The local government or designated nonprofit 
     organization that sold the land shall no longer be eligible 
     for assistance under the Program.
       ``(f) Duties of Owners.--
       ``(1) Use and prohibition on conversion.--The owner of land 
     acquired in whole or in part using funds provided under the 
     Program shall manage the land in a manner that is consistent 
     with the purposes for which the land was purchased under the 
     Program and shall not convert the property to other nonforest 
     uses. Public access for compatible recreational uses, as 
     determined by the owner, shall be required.
       ``(2) Management plan.--Not later than two years after the 
     closing date on the purchase of land using funds under the 
     Program, the owner of the land shall complete a management 
     plan for the land, which shall be subject to the approval of 
     the responsible State agency. Management plans shall be 
     created through a public process that allows for community 
     participation and input.
       ``(g) Cost Sharing Requirements.--
       ``(1) Cost sharing.--In accordance with such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, costs for the 
     acquisition of land under the Program, and other costs 
     associated with the Program, shall be shared among 
     participating entities, including State, county, municipal, 
     and other governmental units, landowners, corporations, or 
     private organizations. Such costs may include costs 
     associated with planning, administration, property 
     acquisition, and property management. The Secretary may 
     authorize in-kind contributions.
       ``(2) Federal cost share.--The Federal share of the cost to 
     acquire land under the Program shall not exceed 50 percent of 
     the total cost to acquire the land. Payments under this 
     section shall be made in accordance with Federal appraisal 
     and acquisition standards and procedures.
       ``(3) Administration and technical assistance.--In order to 
     assist local governments in achieving model stewardship of 
     land acquired under the Program, 10 percent of all funds 
     appropriated for a fiscal year for the Program shall be 
     allocated to the responsible State agencies in participating 
     States to administer the Program and to provide technical 
     assistance to local governments for forest stewardship, 
     including development and implementation of management plans 
     required by subsection (f)(2).
       ``(h) Private Property Protections.--
       ``(1) Access.--Nothing in this section--
       ``(A) requires a private property owner to permit public 
     access (including Federal, State, or local government access) 
     to private property; or
       ``(B) modifies any provision of Federal, State, or local 
     law with regard to public access to, or use of, private land.
       ``(2) Liability.--Nothing in this section creates any 
     liability, or has any effect on liability under any other 
     law, of a private property owner with respect to any persons 
     injured on the private property.
       ``(3) Recognition of authority to control land use.--
     Nothing in this section modifies any authority of Federal, 
     State, or local governments to regulate land use.
       ``(4) Participation of private property owners.--Nothing in 
     this section requires a private property owner to participate 
     in the Program.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the funds 
     available through the Commodity Credit Corporation, The 
     Secretary shall use to carry out the Program $10,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012.''.
       In the matter to be inserted by section 2401(b) strike 
     ``2011'' and insert ``2008'' and before clause (i) insert the 
     following (and redesignate subsequent clauses accordingly):
       ``(i) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(ii) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       ``(iii) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;''.
       In the matter to be inserted by section 2401(d) strike 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) and insert the following:
       ``(A) $1,675,000,000 in fiscal year 2008;
       ``(B) $1,840,000,000 in fiscal year 2009;
       ``(C) $1,840,000,000 in fiscal year 2010;
       ``(D) $1,940,000,000 in fiscal year 2011; and''.
       Section 2401(e) is amended to read as follows:
       (e) Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.--Paragraph (7) of 
     section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3841(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) The wildlife habitat incentives program under section 
     1240N, using, to the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(A) $85,000,000 in fiscal year 2008;
       ``(B) $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2009;
       ``(C) $140,000,000 in fiscal year 2010;
       ``(D) $150,000,000 in fiscal years 2011 and 2012.''.

       [TRADE TITLE]

       Strike section 3005 (relating to the McGovern-Dole 
     International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program) 
     and insert the following:

     SEC. 3005. MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND 
                   CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM.

       (a) Administration of Program.--Section 3107 of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1) 
     is amended--

[[Page 20863]]

       (1) in subsection (d), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``The President shall designate 1 or more 
     Federal agencies to'' and inserting ``The Secretary shall'';
       (2) in subsection (f)(2), in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by striking ``implementing agency'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary''; and
       (3) in subsections (c)(2)(B), (f)(1), (h)(1) and(2), and 
     (i), by striking ``President'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Secretary''.
       (b) Funding.--Subsection (1) of such section is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Use of commodity credit corporation funds.--Of the 
     funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary 
     shall use to carry out this section--
       ``(A) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(B) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(C) $220,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       ``(D) $260,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
       ``(E) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (3) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by 
     striking ``any Federal agency implementing or assisting'' and 
     inserting ``the Department of Agriculture or any other 
     Federal department or agency assisting''.

       [NUTRITION TITLE]

       In title IV of the bill, strike section 4008 (relating to 
     Adjusting Countable Resources for Inflation), as added to the 
     bill by the En Bloc Amendment adopted, and insert the 
     following (and make such technical and conforming changes as 
     may be appropriate).

     SEC. 4008. ADJUSTING COUNTABLE RESOURCES FOR INFLATION.

       Section (5)(g) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014(g)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(g)(1) The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(g) Allowable Financial Resources.--
       ``(1) Total amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary''.
       (2) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated by paragraph 
     (1))--
       (A) by striking ``$2,000'' and inserting ``$2,700 (as 
     adjusted in accordance with subparagraph (B))''; and
       (B) by striking ``$3,000'' and inserting ``$3,900 (as 
     adjusted in accordance with subparagraph (B)),''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Adjustment for inflation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Beginning on October 1, 2008, and each 
     October 1 thereafter, the amounts in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be adjusted to the nearest $100 increment to reflect changes 
     for the 12-month period ending the preceding June in the 
     Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
       ``(ii) Requirement.--Each adjustment under clause (i) shall 
     be based on the unrounded amount for the prior 12-month 
     period.''.
       At appropriate places throughout title IV, insert the 
     following (and make such technical and conforming changes as 
     may be appropriate):

     SEC. __. EXCLUDING COMBAT RELATED PAY FROM COUNTABLE INCOME.

       Section (5)(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (18)'', and inserting ``(18)'', and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``and (19) any additional payment received under 
     Chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, by (or as an 
     allotment to or transfer from) a member of the United States 
     Armed Forces deployed to a designated combat zone for the 
     duration of the member's deployment to or service in a combat 
     zone if the additional pay was not received immediately prior 
     to serving in that or another combat zone.''.

     SEC. __. INCREASING THE STANDARD DEDUCTION.

       Section (5)(e)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014(e)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii) by striking ``not less than 
     $134'' and all that follows through the period at the end, 
     and inserting the following: ``not less than $156, $267, 
     $220, and $137, respectively. On October 1, 2008, and each 
     October 1 thereafter, such standard deduction shall be an 
     amount that is equal to the amount from the previous fiscal 
     year adjusted to the nearest lower dollar increment to 
     reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 
     Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for 
     items other than food, for the 12 months ending the preceding 
     June 30.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``not less than 
     $269.'' and inserting the following: ``not less than $313. On 
     October 1, 2008, and each October 1 thereafter, such standard 
     deduction shall be an amount that is equal to the amount of 
     the previous fiscal year adjusted to the nearest dollar 
     increment to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for 
     All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics, for items other than food, for the 12 months 
     ending the preceding June 30.''.

     SEC. __. EXCLUDING DEPENDENT CARE EXPENSES.

       Section (5)(e)(3)(A) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2014(e)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``, the maximum 
     allowable level of which shall be $200 per month for each 
     dependent child under 2 years of age and $175 per month for 
     each other dependent,''.

     SEC. __. ADJUSTING COUNTABLE RESOURCES FOR INFLATION.

       Section (5)(g) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014(g)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(g)(1) The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(g) Allowable Financial Resources.--
       ``(1) Total amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary''.
       (2) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated by paragraph 
     (1))--
       (A) by inserting ``(as adjusted in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B))'' after ``$2,000''; and
       (B) by inserting ``(as adjusted in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B))'' after ``$3,000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Adjustment for inflation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Beginning on October 1, 2007, and each 
     October 1 thereafter, the amounts in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be adjusted to the nearest $100 increment to reflect changes 
     for the 12-month period ending the preceding June in the 
     Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
       ``(ii) Requirement.--Each adjustment under clause (i) shall 
     be based on the unrounded amount for the prior 12-month 
     period.''.

     SEC. __. EXCLUDING EDUCATION ACCOUNTS FROM COUNTABLE INCOME.

       Section (5)(g) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Exclusion of education accounts from countable 
     resources.--
       ``(A) Mandatory exclusions.--The Secretary shall exclude 
     from financial resources under this subsection the value of 
     any funds in a qualified tuition program described in section 
     529 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or in a Coverdell 
     education savings account under section 530 of that Code.
       ``(B) Discretionary exclusions.--The Secretary may also 
     exclude from financial resources under this subsection the 
     value of any program or account included in any successor or 
     similar provision that is enacted and determined to be exempt 
     from taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.

     SEC. __. EXCLUDING RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FROM COUNTABLE INCOME.

       Section (5)(g) of the of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2014(g)), as amended by the preceding section, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (g)(2)(B)(v) by striking ``or retirement 
     account (including an individual account)'' and inserting 
     ``account''; and
       (2) adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Exclusion of retirement accounts from countable 
     resources.--
       ``(A) Mandatory exclusions.--The Secretary shall exclude 
     from financial resources under this subsection the value of 
     any funds in a plan, contract, or account as described in 
     section 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A, 457(b), or 
     501(c)(18) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the value 
     of funds in a Federal Thrift Savings Plan account as provided 
     section 8439 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(B) Discretionary exclusions.--
       ``(i) The Secretary may exclude from financial resources 
     under this subsection any other retirement plans, contracts, 
     or accounts that have been determined to be tax qualified 
     retirement plans, contracts, or accounts, under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(ii) The Secretary may also exclude from financial 
     resources under this subsection the value of any program or 
     account included in any successor or similar provision that 
     is enacted and determined to be exempt from taxation under 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.

     SEC. __. INCREASING THE MINIMUM BENEFIT.

       Section 8(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2017(a)) is amended by striking ``$10 per month'' and 
     inserting ``10 percent of the thrifty food plan for a 
     household containing 1 member, as determined by the Secretary 
     under section 3(o)''.

     SEC. __. EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 27(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2036(a)) is amended by--
       (1) by striking ``(a) Purchase of Commodities'' and all 
     that follows through 2007' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Purchase of Commodities.--
       ``(1) In general.--As provided in paragraph (2), for each 
     of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012'';
       (2) by striking ``$140,000,000 of''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Amounts.--The following amounts are made available to 
     carry out this subsection:
       ``(A) for fiscal year 2008, $250,000,000; and
       ``(B) for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2012, the 
     dollar amount of commodities specified in subparagraph (A) 
     adjusted by the percentage by which the thrifty food plan has 
     been adjusted under section 3(o)(4) between June 30, 2007 and 
     June 30 of the immediately preceding fiscal year.''.

     SEC. __. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE NUTRITION PROMOTION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
     through the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Service, shall establish and carry out a program to provide

[[Page 20864]]

     assistance to eligible trade organizations described in 
     paragraph (3) to increase the consumption of fruits and 
     vegetables in the United States to meet Federal health 
     guidelines.
       (b) Requirements for Participation.--To be eligible for 
     assistance under this section, an eligible trade organization 
     shall--
       (1) prepare and submit a plan to increase the consumption 
     of fruits and vegetables in the United States to the 
     Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service that 
     meets any guidelines governing such plans established by the 
     Administrator; and
       (2) meet any other requirements established by the 
     Administrator.
       (c) Eligible Trade Organizations.--An eligible trade 
     organization referred to in paragraph (1) means any of the 
     following:
       (1) A nonprofit fruit and vegetable trade organizations in 
     the United States.
       (2) A nonprofit State or regional fruit and vegetable 
     organization.
       (3) A fruit and vegetable agricultural cooperative in the 
     United States.
       (4) A commodity board or commission in the United States.
       (5) A small business engaged in the fruit and vegetable 
     industry in the United States.
       (d) Matching Funds.--Assistance provided under this section 
     shall not exceed--
       (1) in the case of an organization described in paragraphs 
     (1) through (5) of subsection (c), 90 percent of the cost of 
     the plan to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables 
     in the United States submitted under paragraph (b)(1); and
       (2) in the case of an organization described in paragraph 
     (c)(5), 50 percent of the cost of the plan to increase the 
     consumption of fruits and vegetables in the United States 
     submitted under paragraph (b)(1).
       (e) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Service shall use $15,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012 to carry out this section.
       In section 4020(a), strike paragraph (4) and insert the 
     following:
       (4) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) Funding.--For each of the fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012, the Secretary shall use $30 million of the funds, 
     facilities and authorities of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation to carry out this section.''.
       In section 4303(4)(A), strike clause (ii) and insert the 
     following:
       (ii) by striking ``$9,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$100,000,000''.
       At the end of subtitle C of title IV, insert the 
     following(and make such technical and conforming changes as 
     may be appropriate):

     SEC. ___. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Domestic hunger goal.--The term ``domestic hunger 
     goal'' means--
       (A) the goal of reducing hunger in the United States to at 
     or below 2 percent by 2010; or
       (B) the goal of reducing food insecurity in the United 
     States to at or below 6 percent by 2010.
       (2) Emergency feeding organization.--The term ``emergency 
     feeding organization'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 
     U.S.C. 7501).
       (3) Food security.--The term ``food security'' means the 
     state in which an individual has access to enough food for an 
     active, healthy life.
       (4) Hunger-free communities goal.--The term ``hunger-free 
     communities goal'' means any of the 14 goals described in the 
     H. Con. Res. 302 (102nd Congress).
       (b) Hunger Reports.--
       (1) Study.--
       (A) Timeline.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study of 
     major matters relating to the problem of hunger in the United 
     States, as determined by the Secretary.
       (ii) Update.--Not later than 5 years after the date on 
     which the study under clause (i) is conducted, the Secretary 
     shall update the study.
       (B) Matters to be assessed.--The matters to be assessed by 
     the Secretary in the study and update under this paragraph 
     shall include--
       (i) data on hunger and food insecurity in the United 
     States;
       (ii) measures carried out during the previous year by 
     Federal, State, and local governments to achieve domestic 
     hunger goals and hunger-free communities goals;
       (iii) measures that could be carried out by Federal, State, 
     and local governments to achieve domestic hunger goals and 
     hunger-free communities goals; and
       (iv) the impact of hunger and household food insecurity on 
     obesity, in the context of poverty and food assistance 
     programs.
       (2) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall develop 
     recommendations on--
       (A) removing obstacles to achieving domestic hunger goals 
     and hunger-free communities goals; and
       (B) otherwise reducing domestic hunger.
       (3) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the President 
     and Congress--
       (A) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, a report that contains--
       (i) a detailed statement of the results of the study, or 
     the most recent update to the study, conducted under 
     paragraph (1)(A); and
       (ii) the most recent recommendations of the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2); and
       (B) not later than 5 years after the date of submission of 
     the report under subparagraph (A), an update of the report.
       (c) Hunger-Free Communities Collaborative Grants.--
       (1) Definition of eligible entity.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' means a public food program service 
     provider or a nonprofit organization, including but not 
     limited to an emergency feeding organization, that 
     demonstrates the organization has collaborated, or will 
     collaborate, with 1 or more local partner organizations to 
     achieve at least 1 hunger-free communities goal.
       (2) Program authorized.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall use not more than 55 
     percent of any funds made available under subsection (f) to 
     make grants to eligible entities to pay the Federal share of 
     the costs of an activity described in paragraph (4).
       (B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out an activity under this subsection shall not 
     exceed 80 percent.
       (C) Non-federal share.--
       (i) Calculation.--The non-Federal share of the cost of an 
     activity under this subsection may be provided in cash or in 
     kind, fairly evaluated, including facilities, equipment, or 
     services.
       (ii) Sources.--Any entity may provide the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of an activity under this subsection through a 
     State government, a local government, or a private source.
       (3) Application.--
       (A) In general.--To receive a grant under this subsection, 
     an eligible entity shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at the time and in the manner and accompanied by 
     any information the Secretary may require.
       (B) Contents.--Each application submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall--
       (i) identify any activity described in paragraph (4) that 
     the grant will be used to fund;
       (ii) describe the means by which an activity identified 
     under clause (i) will reduce hunger in the community of the 
     eligible entity;
       (iii) list any partner organizations of the eligible entity 
     that will participate in an activity funded by the grant;
       (iv) describe any agreement between a partner organization 
     and the eligible entity necessary to carry out an activity 
     funded by the grant; and
       (v) if an assessment described in paragraph (4)(A) has been 
     performed, include--

       (I) a summary of that assessment; and
       (II) information regarding the means by which the grant 
     will help reduce hunger in the community of the eligible 
     entity.

       (C) Priority.--In making grants under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that--
       (i) demonstrate in the application of the eligible entity 
     that the eligible entity makes collaborative efforts to 
     reduce hunger in the community of the eligible entity; and
       (ii)(I) serve a predominantly rural and geographically 
     underserved area;
       (II) serve communities in which the rates of food 
     insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment are demonstrably 
     higher than national average rates;
       (III) provide evidence of long-term efforts to reduce 
     hunger in the community;
       (IV) provide evidence of public support for the efforts of 
     the eligible entity; or
       (V) demonstrate in the application of the eligible entity a 
     commitment to achieving more than 1 hunger-free communities 
     goal.
       (4) Use of funds.--
       (A) Assessment of hunger in the community.--
       (i) In general.--An eligible entity in a community that has 
     not performed an assessment described in clause (ii) may use 
     a grant received under this subsection to perform the 
     assessment for the community.
       (ii) Assessment.--The assessment referred to in clause (ii) 
     shall include--

       (I) an analysis of the problem of hunger in the community 
     served by the eligible entity;
       (II) an evaluation of any facility and any equipment used 
     to achieve a hunger-free communities goal in the community;
       (III) an analysis of the effectiveness and extent of 
     service of existing nutrition programs and emergency feeding 
     organizations; and
       (IV) a plan to achieve any other hunger-free communities 
     goal in the community.

       (B) Activities.--An eligible entity in a community that has 
     submitted an assessment to the Secretary shall use a grant 
     received under this subsection for any fiscal year for 
     activities of the eligible entity, including--
       (i) meeting the immediate needs of people in the community 
     served by the eligible entity who experience hunger by--

       (I) distributing food;
       (II) providing community outreach; or
       (III) improving access to food as part of a comprehensive 
     service;

       (ii) developing new resources and strategies to help reduce 
     hunger in the community;

[[Page 20865]]

       (iii) establishing a program to achieve a hunger-free 
     communities goal in the community, including--

       (I) a program to prevent, monitor, and treat children in 
     the community experiencing hunger or poor nutrition; or
       (II) a program to provide information to people in the 
     community on hunger, domestic hunger goals, and hunger-free 
     communities goals; and

       (iv) establishing a program to provide food and nutrition 
     services as part of a coordinated community-based 
     comprehensive service.
       (d) Hunger-Free Communities Infrastructure Grants.--
       (1) Definition of eligible entity.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' means an emergency feeding 
     organization (as defined in section 201A(4) of the Emergency 
     Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501(4))).
       (2) Program authorized.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall use not more than 45 
     percent of any funds made available under subsection (f) to 
     make grants to eligible entities to pay the Federal share of 
     the costs of an activity described in paragraph (4).
       (B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out an activity under this subsection shall not 
     exceed 80 percent.
       (3) Application.--
       (A) In general.--To receive a grant under this subsection, 
     an eligible entity shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at the time and in the manner and accompanied by 
     any information the Secretary may require.
       (B) Contents.--Each application submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall--
       (i) identify any activity described in paragraph (4) that 
     the grant will be used to fund; and
       (ii) describe the means by which an activity identified 
     under clause (i) will reduce hunger in the community of the 
     eligible entity.
       (C) Priority.--In making grants under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities the 
     applications of which demonstrate 2 or more of the following:
       (i) The eligible entity serves a predominantly rural and 
     geographically underserved area.
       (ii) The eligible entity serves a community in which the 
     rates of food insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment 
     are demonstrably higher than national average rates.
       (iii) The eligible entity serves a community that has 
     carried out long-term efforts to reduce hunger in the 
     community.
       (iv) The eligible entity serves a community that provides 
     public support for the efforts of the eligible entity.
       (v) The eligible entity is committed to achieving more than 
     1 hunger-free communities goal.
       (4) Use of funds.--An eligible entity shall use a grant 
     received under this subsection for any fiscal year to carry 
     out activities of the eligible entity, including--
       (A) constructing, expanding, or repairing a facility or 
     equipment to support hunger relief agencies in the community;
       (B) assisting an emergency feeding organization in the 
     community in obtaining locally-produced produce and protein 
     products; and
       (C) assisting an emergency feeding organization in the 
     community to process and serve wild game.
       (e) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2013, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing--
       (1) each grant made under this section, including--
       (A) a description of any activity funded by such a grant; 
     and
       (B) the degree of success of each activity funded by such a 
     grant in achieving hunger-free communities goals; and
       (2) the degree of success of all activities funded by 
     grants under this section in achieving domestic hunger goals.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
       In subsection (a)(1) of the amendment made by section 
     4401(a) of the bill, strike ``$15,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$45,000,000'' .
       In subsection (a) of the amendment made by section 4401(a) 
     of the bill, strike paragraph (2) and insert the following:
       (2) There is authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out and 
     expand the senior farmers' market nutrition programs.
       At the end of subtitle D of title IV, insert the following 
     (and make such technical and conforming changes as may be 
     appropriate):

     SEC. __. GRANTS FOR LOCAL FARMERS AND COMMUNITY FARMING.

       (a) Grants to Assist Municipalities to Help Local Farmers 
     to Grow Food to Be Sold Locally.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make a 
     grant in accordance with this subsection to a municipality to 
     enable the municipality to facilitate the ability of local 
     farmers to grow food crops or raise beef, poultry, or other 
     consumable agricultural products to be sold to the local 
     community.
       (2) Maximum amount of grant.--The amount of a grant under 
     this subsection shall not exceed $100,000.
       (3) Use of grants.--
       (A) In general.--A municipality to which a grant is made 
     under this subsection shall use the grant, subject to 
     subparagraph (B), to establish a community supported 
     agriculture project, by--
       (i) leasing municipal land to a participating farmer;
       (ii) providing a loan guarantee for a loan made for the 
     purchase or lease of equipment or facilities to be used by a 
     participating farmer;
       (iii) establish a kitchen certified by relevant health 
     authorities for use by the participating farmer and other 
     farmers operating, as determined by the municipality, locally 
     or regionally; or
       (iv) establish a beef, poultry or other agricultural 
     product processing plant certified by relevant health 
     authorities for use by the participating farmer or other 
     farmers operating, a determined by the municipality, locally 
     or regionally.
       (B) Requirements relating to minimum output, local sale, 
     and under-served communities.--
       (i) In general.--A lease entered into or a loan guarantee 
     provided pursuant to this subsection shall provide that the 
     municipality may terminate the lease or rescind the loan 
     guarantee, as the case may be, if, during each year for which 
     the lease or loan guarantee is in effect--

       (I) the total value of the crops, beef, poultry, or other 
     consumable agricultural products produced from the land 
     involved is less than $5,000;
       (II) at least 30 percent of the crops, beef, poultry, or 
     other consumable agricultural products are not made available 
     for sale in an under-served community; or
       (III) at least 70 percent of the crops, beef, poultry, or 
     other consumable agricultural products are not made available 
     for sale locally or regionally.

       (ii) Local or regional sale.--An agricultural product shall 
     be considered to be made available for sale locally or 
     regionally for purposes of this subsection if the product is 
     distributed within the locality or region where produced, in 
     a manner which--

       (I) ensures that information regarding the product origin, 
     production practices, or other similar information which is a 
     source of value to the end-use consumer is typically 
     conveyed;
       (II) facilitates the likelihood that the income of the 
     community supported agriculture operation is increased 
     through maximization of the share of the retail food price 
     retained by the producer;
       (III) ensures that consumers are provided with an 
     affordable product produced, processed, and distributed in 
     the locality or region where the end-use consumers acquire 
     the product; and
       (IV) ensures that the product has traveled less than half 
     of the current average distance of all food produced and 
     consumed in the United States, as determined by the 
     Secretary.

       (C) Public bidding required.--The municipality shall 
     solicit bids from the general public for the leases and loan 
     guarantees to be provided by the municipality pursuant to 
     this subsection. The municipality shall conduct the bidding 
     in a manner that creates a primary preference for minority 
     and socially-disadvantaged farmers and ranchers (as defined 
     in section 355(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2003 (e))) and a secondary 
     preference for participating farmers who will farm the land 
     organically.
       (4) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.--For 
     grants under this subsection, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary not more than $40,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
       (b) Grants to Support the Formation of Community-Supported 
     Agricultural Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make a 
     grant to enable a local nongovernmental farming association 
     that promotes community-based farming or to a qualified 
     farmer to provide technical, advisory, and other assistance 
     to support the formation of a municipally-based community-
     supported agricultural project.
       (2) Maximum amount of grant.--The amount of a grant under 
     this subsection shall not exceed $25,000.
       (3) Use of grants.--A grant recipient shall use the grant 
     to--
       (A) provide public information about the assistance 
     available pursuant to this section;
       (B) provide technical and advisory assistance to 
     participating farmers who enter into a lease or receive a 
     loan guarantee from a municipality pursuant to section 1; or
       (C) conduct training sessions on subjects relevant to 
     starting, operating, maintaining, or marketing crops produced 
     by participating farmers.
       (4) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``qualified 
     farmer'' means a farmer who demonstrated expertise in setting 
     up a profit-making enterprise, such as a farm, a community 
     supported agriculture operation, or a farmers market that has 
     been in operation at least five years.
       (5) Dispute resolution.--In the event of a landlord-tenant 
     dispute, dispute concerning

[[Page 20866]]

     ownership rights to improved infrastructure, or other dispute 
     between a municipality and a participating farmer, the 
     parties shall utilize the services of the Certified State 
     Agricultural Mediation Program is administered by the Farm 
     Service Agency.
       (6) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.--For 
     grants under this subsection, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary not more than $10,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
       (c) Grants to Provide Start-up Funds to Farmers Who Must 
     Diversify Their Operations in Order to Participate in 
     Community-Supported Agricultural Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make a 
     one-time grant to provide start-up funding to an agricultural 
     producer who must diversify the agricultural operations of 
     the producer in order to participate in a community-supported 
     agricultural project.
       (2) Maximum amount of grant.--The amount of a grant under 
     this subsection shall not exceed $5,000.
       (3) Use of grants.--An agricultural producer to whom a 
     grant is made under this subsection shall use the grant to 
     begin a new agricultural operation.
       (4) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.--For 
     grants under this subsection, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary not more than $2,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
       (d) Marketing Assistance for Community Supported 
     Agriculture Projects.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     provide marketing assistance to a participating farmer who 
     has received a lease or loan guarantee under section 1 that 
     has not been terminated, to assist the farmer in marketing to 
     community institutions, including schools, child care 
     centers, and senior centers.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Community-supported agricultural project.--The term 
     ``community-supported agricultural project'' means a contract 
     under which a group of consumers, a nonprofit organization, 
     or a public agency which represents consumers is obligated to 
     purchase a specified amount of 1 or more agricultural 
     products directly from 1 or more agricultural producers 
     during a specific period.
       (2) Farm vendor.--The term `farm vendor' means a farmer, a 
     member of the farmer's family, or employee of the farmer, who 
     sells their products at a farmers market. The farm vendor 
     must offer for sale at the market only the food or other 
     items that are grown or produced by that farm.
       (3) Marketing alliance.--The term ``marketing alliance'' 
     means a legally recognized entity, such as the National 
     Farmers Market Coalition, from which growers and farmers 
     market managers can obtain technical support on farmers 
     market issues.
       (4) Municipality.--The term ``municipality'' includes any 
     city, town, borough, county, parish, district, transportation 
     district, assessment jurisdiction, or other public body, or 
     any other political subdivision within the territorial limits 
     of the United States, created by or pursuant to State law or 
     the law of an Indian tribe or tribal organization, with the 
     authority to impose a tax, charge, or fee.
       (5) Nongovernmental farming association.--The term 
     ``nongovernmental farming association'' means any of the 
     following entities that has legal standing:
       (A) A group of agricultural producers that operates as a 
     marketing alliance.
       (B) A cooperative association, each of whose owners and 
     members is an agricultural producer.
       (C) A group of 2 or more agricultural producers or farm 
     vendors who sell an agricultural product through a common 
     distribution channel.
       (D) A nonprofit organization with expertise in farming.
       (E) A network or association of agricultural producers.
       (6) Participating farmer.--The term ``participating 
     farmer'' means an agricultural producer who has made a 
     binding commitment to participate in a community-supported 
     agricultural project.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' includes the several States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United 
     States Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
       (8) Under-served community.--The term ``under-served 
     community'' means an urban, rural, or tribal community which 
     has--
       (A) limited access to affordable, healthy foods, including 
     fresh fruits and vegetables, in retail grocery stores or 
     farmer-to-consumer direct markets;
       (B) a high incidence of diet-related diseases, including 
     obesity;
       (C) a high rate of hunger or food insecurity; or
       (D) severe or persistent poverty.
       (f) Regulations.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

       [RURAL DEVELOPMENT TITLE]

       Strike section 6013 and insert the following:

     SEC. 6013. RURAL ENTREPRENEUR AND MICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Subtitle D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act is amended by inserting after section 364 (7 U.S.C. 
     2006f) the following:

     ``SEC. 365. RURAL ENTREPRENEUR AND MICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Economically disadvantaged microentrepreneur.--The 
     term `economically disadvantaged microentrepreneur' means an 
     owner, majority owner, or developer of a microenterprise that 
     has the ability to compete in the private sector but has been 
     impaired because of diminished capital and credit 
     opportunities, as compared to other microentrepreneurs in the 
     industry involved.
       ``(2) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       ``(3) Intermediary.--The term `intermediary' means a 
     nonprofit entity that has a demonstrated capacity to provide 
     assistance--
       ``(A) to a microenterprise development organization; or
       ``(B) for a microenterprise development program.
       ``(4) Low-income individual.--The term `low-income 
     individual' means an individual with an income (adjusted for 
     family size) of not more than the greatest of--
       ``(A) 80 percent of median income of the non-metropolitan 
     statistical area in which the individual resides;
       ``(B) 80 percent of the statewide non-metropolitan area 
     median income; or
       ``(C) 80 percent of the national median income.
       ``(5) Microcredit.--The term `microcredit' means a business 
     loan or loan guarantee of not more than $50,000 that is 
     provided to a rural entrepreneur.
       ``(6) Microenterprise.--The term `microenterprise' means--
       ``(A) a self-employed individual; or
       ``(B) a business entity with not more than 10 full-time-
     equivalent employees.
       ``(7) Microenterprise development organization.--The term 
     `microenterprise development organization' means a private, 
     nonprofit entity that--
       ``(A) provides training and technical assistance to rural 
     entrepreneurs;
       ``(B) facilitates access to capital or another service 
     described in subsection (b) for rural entrepreneurs; and
       ``(C) has a demonstrated record of delivering services to 
     economically disadvantaged microentrepreneurs, or an 
     effective plan to develop a program to deliver 
     microenterprise services to rural entrepreneurs effectively, 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(8) Microenterprise development program.--The term 
     `microenterprise development program' means a program 
     administered by an organization serving a rural area.
       ``(9) Microentrepreneur.--The term `microentrepreneur' 
     means the owner, operator, or developer of a microenterprise.
       ``(10) Program.--The term `Program' means the rural 
     entrepreneur and microenterprise program established under 
     subsection (b)(1).
       ``(11) Qualified organization.--The term `qualified 
     organization' means----
       ``(A) an intermediary;
       ``(B) a microenterprise development organization or 
     microenterprise development program that--
       ``(i) has a demonstrated record of delivering 
     microenterprise services to rural entrepreneurs; or
       ``(ii) has an effective plan to develop a program to 
     deliver microenterprise services to rural entrepreneurs 
     effectively, as determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(C) an Indian tribe, the tribal government of which 
     certifies to the Secretary that no microenterprise 
     development organization or microenterprise development 
     program exists under the jurisdiction of the Indian tribe;
       ``(D) a group of 2 or more organizations or Indian tribes 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (B) that agree to act 
     jointly as a qualified organization under this section; or
       ``(E) for purposes of subsection (b), a public college or 
     university.
       ``(12) Rural capacity-building service.--The term `rural 
     capacity-building service' means a service provided to an 
     organization that--
       ``(A) is, or is in the process of becoming, a 
     microenterprise development organization or microenterprise 
     development program; and
       ``(B) serves rural areas for the purpose of enhancing the 
     ability of the organization to provide training, technical 
     assistance, and other related services to rural 
     entrepreneurs.
       ``(13) Rural entrepreneur.--The term `rural entrepreneur' 
     means a microentrepreneur, or prospective microentrepreneur--
       ``(A) the principal place of business of which is in a 
     rural area; and
       ``(B) that is unable to obtain sufficient training, 
     technical assistance, or microcredit elsewhere, as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(14) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, acting through the Rural Business and 
     Cooperative Development Service.
       ``(15) Tribal government.--The term `tribal government' 
     means the governing body of an Indian tribe.

[[Page 20867]]

       ``(b) Rural Entrepreneurship and Microenterprise Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a rural 
     entrepreneurship and microenterprise program.
       ``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Program shall be to 
     provide low-income individuals and moderate-income 
     individuals with--
       ``(A) the skills necessary to establish new 
     microenterprises in rural areas; and
       ``(B) continuing technical and financial assistance as 
     individuals and business starting or operating 
     microenterprises.
       ``(3) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant under the 
     Program to a qualified organization or intermediary--
       ``(i) to provide training, operational support, or a rural 
     capacity-building service to another qualified organization 
     to assist the other organization in developing 
     microenterprise training, technical assistance, market 
     development assistance, and other related services, for 
     microenterprise, with an emphasis on those that--

       ``(I) have 5 or fewer full-time equivalent employees;
       ``(II) serve low income individuals; or
       ``(III) serve areas that have lost population;

       ``(ii) to assist in researching and developing the best 
     practices in delivering training, technical assistance, and 
     microcredit to rural entrepreneurs; and
       ``(iii) to carry out such other projects and activities as 
     the Secretary determines to be consistent with the purposes 
     of this section.
       ``(B) Subgrants.--Subject to such regulations as the 
     Secretary may promulgate, a qualified organization that 
     receives a grant under this paragraph may use the grant to 
     provide assistance to other qualified organizations, such as 
     small or emerging qualified organizations.
       ``(C) Diversity.--In making grants under this paragraph, 
     the Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, that grant recipients include qualified 
     organizations--
       ``(i) of varying sizes; and
       ``(ii) that serve racially and ethnically diverse 
     populations.
       ``(D) Matching requirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--As a condition of any grant made under 
     this paragraph, the Secretary shall require the grantee to 
     expend for the project involved, from non-Federal sources, 
     not less than 25 percent of the total amount of the grant.
       ``(ii) Form of contribution.--The non-Federal share of the 
     cost of a project described in clause (i) may be provided--

       ``(I) in cash (including through fees, grants (including 
     community development block grants), and gifts); or
       ``(II) in-kind.

       ``(4) Rural microloan program.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--In carrying out the Program, the 
     Secretary may carry out a rural microloan program.
       ``(B) Purpose.--The purpose of the rural microloan program 
     shall be to provide technical and financial assistance to 
     microenterprises in rural areas and rural entrepreneurs, with 
     an emphasis on those that--
       ``(i) have 5 or fewer full-time equivalent employees;
       ``(ii) serve low income individuals; or
       ``(iii) serve areas that have lost population.
       ``(C) Authority of secretary.--In carrying out the rural 
     microloan program, the Secretary may--
       ``(i) make loans to qualified organizations for the purpose 
     of making short-term, fixed interest rate microloans to 
     startup, newly established, and growing microenterprises in 
     rural areas; and
       ``(ii) in conjunction with the loans, provide grants in 
     accordance with subparagraph (E) to the qualified 
     organizations for the purpose of providing intensive 
     marketing, management, and technical assistance to 
     microenterprises in rural areas that are borrowers under this 
     subsection.
       ``(D) Loan duration; interest rates; conditions.--
       ``(i) Loan duration.--A loan made by the Secretary under 
     this paragraph shall be for a term not to exceed 20 years.
       ``(ii) Applicable interest rates.--A loan made by the 
     Secretary under this paragraph shall bear an annual interest 
     rate of at least 1 percent.
       ``(E) Grant amounts.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, each qualified organization that receives a loan 
     under this paragraph shall be eligible to receive a grant to 
     provide marketing, management, and technical assistance to 
     microenterprises in rural areas that are borrowers or 
     potential borrowers under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Maximum amount of grant for microenterprise 
     development organizations.--The amount of the grant referred 
     to in clause (i) shall be not more than 25 percent of the 
     total outstanding balance of loans made by the 
     microenterprise development organization under this paragraph 
     as of the date of provision of the grant, except that for the 
     first loan made to a microenterprise development 
     organization, the Secretary may make a grant not to exceed 25 
     percent of the outstanding balance of the loan.
       ``(iii) Matching requirement.--

       ``(I) In general.--As a condition of any grant made to a 
     qualified organization under this subparagraph, the Secretary 
     shall require the organization to expend for the grant 
     project involved, from non-Federal sources, not less than 15 
     percent of the total amount of the grant.
       ``(II) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of a project described in subclause (I) may be 
     provided--

       ``(aa) in cash; or
       ``(bb) in-kind.
       ``(c) Administrative Expenses.--Not more than 10 percent of 
     the assistance received by a qualified organization for a 
     fiscal year under this section may be used to pay 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(d) Funding.--
       ``(1) Mandatory funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary shall use to carry out this 
     section $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012, to remain available until expended.
       ``(B) Allocation of funds.--Of the amount made available by 
     subparagraph (A) for each fiscal year--
       ``(i) not less than $24,000,000 shall be available for use 
     in carrying out subsection (b)(3); and
       ``(ii) not less than $16,000,000 shall be available for use 
     in carrying out subsection (b)(4), of which not more than 
     $6,000,000 shall be used to support loans.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts made available under paragraph (1), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.''.
       In section 231(b)(5)(A) of the Agricultural Risk Protection 
     Act of 2000, as proposed to be added by section 6027(b)(1) of 
     the bill--
       (1) strike ``10'' and insert ``15'';
       (2) insert ``(i)'' after ``benefit'';
       (3) strike ``or socially'' and insert ``, (ii) socially''; 
     and
       (4) insert ``, or (iii) an Indian tribe (as defined in 
     section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b))'' before the period.
       In section 6045(g)(1) of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002, as proposed to be amended by section 
     6027(b) of the bill, strike ``$30,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$50,000,000''.

       [RESEARCH TITLE]

       In section 7310, strike subsections (f) and (g) and insert 
     the following:
       (f) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make 
     available $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.
       In section 7411, strike subsections (g) and (h) that appear 
     within quotation marks and insert the following:
       ``(g) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary shall make available $100,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.''.

       [ENERGY TITLE]

       Strike section 9013.
       At the end of title IX, add the following new section:

     SEC. __. VOLUNTARY RENEWABLE FUELS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, shall establish a program to certify 
     biomass crops that meet sustainable growing standards 
     designed to reduce greenhouse gases, protect wildlife 
     habitat, and protect air, soil, and water quality.
       (b) Certification Requirements.--To qualify for 
     certification under the program established under subsection 
     (a), a biomass crop shall be inspected and certified as 
     meeting the standards adopted under subsection (c) by an 
     inspector referred to in subsection (d).
       (c) Production Standards.--The Secretary shall adopt 
     standards for the certification of biomass crops under 
     subsection (b) that provide measurement of a numerical 
     reduction in greenhouse gases and soil and water pollutants, 
     based upon the recommendations of an advisory committee 
     jointly established by the Secretary and the Administrator.
       (d) Inspectors.--The Secretary shall designate inspectors 
     that the Secretary determines are qualified to certify 
     biomass crops under this section to carry out inspections 
     under subsection (b).
       (e) Designation of Certified Products.--A product produced 
     from a biomass crop that is certified under this section may 
     be designated as having been produced from a certified 
     biomass crop if the producer of the product verifies the 
     product was produced from such crop and the verification 
     includes a copy of the certification under subsection (b).

       [HORTICULTURE TITLE]

       At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. __. PESTICIDES.

       (a) Recordkeeping and Reporting.--
       (1) Amendment.--Section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i-1) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1491. PESTICIDE RECORDKEEPING.

       ``(a) Requirements.--

[[Page 20868]]

       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, shall require certified commercial 
     applicators and private applicators of pesticides (whether 
     for general use or restricted use) to maintain--
       ``(A) records comparable to records maintained by 
     commercial applicators of pesticides, as required by the 
     State in which the pesticide is used, or
       ``(B) if there is no State requirement for the maintenance 
     of records, records that contain the product and chemical 
     name, the registration number assigned to the pesticide under 
     the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 
     amount, date and time of application, and location of 
     application of each such pesticide used in agricultural 
     production,

     for a period of 20 years after the pesticide is used.
       ``(2) Provision of records to certain persons.--Within 30 
     days of a pesticide application, a certified commercial 
     applicator shall provide a copy of records maintained under 
     paragraph (1) to the person for whom such application was 
     provided.
       ``(3) Provision of records to secretary.--Within 30 days of 
     a pesticide application, a certified commercial applicator or 
     private applicator shall provide a copy of records maintained 
     under paragraph (1) to--
       ``(A) any State agency designated by the State for such 
     purpose; and
       ``(B) the Secretary of Agriculture.
       ``(4) Maintenance by secretary.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall maintain records submitted to 
     the Secretary under paragraph (3) for a period of at least 20 
     years after the pesticide is used.
       ``(B) Exception.--The Secretary of Agriculture is not 
     required to maintain records pursuant to subparagraph (A) if 
     the Secretary determines that the State in which the 
     pesticide is used will maintain such records for a period of 
     at least 20 years after such use.
       ``(b) Access to Records.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon request, records maintained under 
     subsection (a) shall be made available by applicators and by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture to the following:
       ``(A) A Federal or State agency that deals with pesticide 
     use or any health, occupational safety, or environmental 
     issue related to the use of pesticides.
       ``(B) Health care professionals treating persons who 
     reasonably believe that they have been exposed to pesticides.
       ``(C) Agricultural workers who reasonably believe they have 
     been exposed to pesticides, their immediate family members, 
     and their representatives.
       ``(D) Researchers conducting studies on pesticides, 
     occupational safety or health, or environmental conditions.
       ``(2) Agencies.--In the case of Federal agencies, such 
     access to records maintained under subsection (a) shall be 
     through the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Secretary's 
     designee. State agency requests for access to records 
     maintained under subsection (a) shall be through the lead 
     State agency so designated by the State.
       ``(3) Health care personnel.--When a health professional 
     determines that pesticide information maintained under this 
     section is necessary to provide medical treatment or first 
     aid to an individual who may have been exposed to pesticides 
     for which the information is maintained, upon request 
     applicators and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promptly 
     provide applicable records maintained under subsection (a) 
     and available label information to that health professional. 
     In the case of an emergency, such records and information 
     shall be provided immediately.
       ``(4) Agricultural workers.--When an agricultural worker 
     reasonably believes he or she has been exposed to pesticides, 
     upon request applicators and the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall provide applicable records maintained under subsection 
     (a) to such worker, the worker's family member, or the 
     worker's representative within 5 business days of the 
     request. In the case of an emergency, such records shall be 
     provided immediately.
       ``(5) Researchers.--When a researcher is conducting a study 
     on a pesticide, occupational safety or health, or 
     environmental conditions, upon request applicators and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall provide applicable records 
     maintained under subsection (a) to such researcher within 30 
     days of the request.
       ``(c) Access to Contact Information.--Upon request, the 
     person for whom a pesticide application was provided shall 
     provide the name and contact information of the applicator to 
     a health care professional described in subsection (b)(3) or 
     an agricultural worker, family member, or representative 
     described in subsection (b)(4).
       ``(d) Surveys and Analyses.--Each Federal agency described 
     in subsection (b)(1)(A) shall conduct surveys and record the 
     data from individual applicators to facilitate statistical 
     analysis for environmental and agronomic purposes, but in 
     reports based on survey data the Federal agency shall not 
     release data, including the location from which the data was 
     derived, that would directly or indirectly reveal the 
     identity of individual producers.
       ``(e) Penalty.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall be 
     responsible for the enforcement of subsections (a), (b), and 
     (c). A violation of subsection (a) or (b) by an applicator, 
     or a violation of subsection (c) by a person described in 
     such subsection, shall--
       ``(1) in the case of the first offense, be subject to a 
     fine of not more than $ 1,000; and
       ``(2) in the case of subsequent offenses, be subject to a 
     fine of not less than $ 2,000 for each violation, except that 
     the penalty shall be less than $1,000 if the Secretary 
     determines that the applicator or person made a good faith 
     effort to comply with such subsection.
       ``(f) Federal or State Provisions.--The requirements of 
     this section shall not affect provisions of other Federal or 
     State laws.
       ``(g) Surveys and Reports.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall survey the records maintained under subsection (a) to 
     develop and maintain a database that is sufficient to enable 
     the Secretary and the Administrator to publish comprehensive 
     reports, at least on an annual basis, concerning agricultural 
     and nonagricultural pesticide use. The Secretary and 
     Administrator shall enter into a memorandum of understanding 
     to define their respective responsibilities under this 
     subsection in order to avoid duplication of effort. Such 
     reports shall be transmitted to Congress not later than April 
     1 of each year.
       ``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     promulgate revised regulations on their respective areas of 
     responsibility implementing this section not later than 180 
     days after the enactment of the NOURISH Act of 2007.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     takes effect on the date that is 180 days after the enactment 
     of the NOURISH Act of 2007.
       (b) Inclusion of Long-Term Adverse Health Effects in 
     Labeling.--Paragraph (2) of section 2(q) of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136(q)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (D)(iii), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) the pesticide is registered for an agricultural use 
     and its labeling does not include information on long-term 
     adverse health effects associated with exposure to the 
     pesticide, such as cancer in individuals so exposed and their 
     children, birth defects, adverse reproductive effects such as 
     infertility or still births, and neurological damage.''.
       (c) Research by CDC.--
       (1) Increased risks among farm workers.--
       (A) In general.--The Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention shall conduct or support research on 
     increased risks of cancer or birth defects among farm workers 
     who have occupational exposure to pesticide and their 
     children.
       (B) Authorization of appropriations.--To carry out this 
     paragraph, there is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2008.
       (2) Biological indicators and clinical tests.--
       (A) In general.--The Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention shall conduct or support research to 
     identify objective biological indicators, and to develop new 
     and additional inexpensive clinical tests, to enable 
     clinicians to diagnose overexposure to pesticides.
       (B) Authorization of appropriations.--To carry out this 
     paragraph, there is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2008.
       (d) Research by USDA.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct 
     or support research on alternatives to agricultural 
     pesticides that have been associated with cancer, birth 
     defects, adverse reproductive effects, or severe neurological 
     disorders in animal studies or epidemiological research.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--To carry out this 
     subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2008.
       (e) Research by EPA.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall conduct or support research to 
     develop field level tests to determine when pesticide-treated 
     fields are safe to reenter.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--To carry out this 
     subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated $7,500,000 
     for fiscal year 2008.
       Section 10301(1) is amended by striking ``$22,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000,000''.
       Section 10303(f) is amended by striking the text and 
     inserting the following: ``Of the funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall make available 
     $50,000.000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to 
     carry out this section. Such funds shall remain available 
     until expended.''.
       Section 10102 is amended by striking subsection (b) and 
     inserting the following new subsection:

[[Page 20869]]

       (b) Availability of Funds.--Subsection (i) of section 101 
     of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(i) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make grants 
     under this section, using--
       ``(1) $110,000,000 in fiscal year 2008;
       ``(2) $115,000,000 in fiscal year 2009;
       ``(3) $120,000,000 in fiscal year 2010;
       ``(4) $125,000,000 in fiscal year 2011; and
       ``(5) $145,000,000 in fiscal year 2012.''.
       In section 6(f)(1) of the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct 
     Marketing Act of 1976 (7 U.S.C. 3005), as added by section 
     10404(b)(4) of the bill, strike ``Secretary of Agriculture 
     use to carry out this section'' and all that follows and 
     insert ``Secretary of Agriculture shall use to carry out this 
     section $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.''.

       [MISCELLANEOUS TITLE]

       At the end of subtitle A of title XI add the following new 
     sections:

     SEC. __. SHARE OF RISK.

       Section 508(k) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(k)) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(3) Share of risk.--The reinsurance agreements of the 
     Corporation with the reinsured companies shall require the 
     reinsured companies to cede to the Corporation 30 percent of 
     its cumulative underwriting gain or loss.''

     SEC. __. REIMBURSEMENT RATE.

       Section 508(k)(4)(A) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)(A)) is amended by striking clause (ii) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(ii) for each of the 2008 and subsequent reinsurance 
     years, 15 percent of the premium used to define loss 
     ratio.''.
       Subparagraph (D) of section 2501(a)(2) of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     2279(a)(2)), as added by section 11201(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the 
     bill, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) Additional contracting authority.--Any agency of the 
     Department of Agriculture may make grants and enter into 
     contracts and cooperative agreements with a community-based 
     organization that meets the definition of an eligible entity 
     under subsection (e) in order to utilize the community-based 
     organization to provide outreach and technical assistance.''.
       Section 2501(a)(4)(A) of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(a)(4)(A)), 
     as amended by section 11201(a)(1)(C)(i) of the bill, is 
     amended by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$35,000,000''.
       At the end of subtitle C of title XI add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. __. MORATORIUM ON FORECLOSURES.

       (a) Moratorium.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall, except 
     for the purposes referred to in subsection (c), immediately 
     issue a moratorium on all current, pending, and future 
     foreclosures, loan accelerations, and adverse actions, with 
     respect to Department of Agriculture loans to any farm or 
     ranch owned or operated by a socially disadvantaged farmer or 
     ranchers (as defined in section 355(e)(2) of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act). The Secretary shall waive 
     the accrual of interest and offsets on all loans affected by 
     this section for the full period of the moratorium or review 
     shall issue write offs of accrued interest and may take such 
     additional actions as recommended by the Commission 
     established in subsection (b).
       (a) Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers 
     Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of shall establish in the 
     Department of Agriculture a commission to be known as the 
     ``USDA Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers 
     Commission'' (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (2) Duties.--The Commission shall review all actions 
     covered by the moratorium under subsection (a) to--
       (A) determine whether Federal, State, or local government 
     actions or inactions contributed to the conditions leading to 
     foreclosure;
       (B) determine whether the acceleration of foreclosure by 
     the Department of Agriculture of loans on farm land owned by 
     socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers was in accordance 
     with applicable laws or regulations;
       (C) improve upon the credibility and accuracy of all 
     Department of Agriculture programs land foreclosure process 
     and procedures;
       (D) recommend to the Secretary actions for the fair 
     resolution of cases reviewed; and
       (E) submit to the Committee on Agriculture and the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry and the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Homeland Security of the Senate a report on programmatic 
     inefficiencies and possible remedies to address any land loss 
     directly resulting from illegal or manifestly unfair acts of 
     the Department of Agriculture.
       Strike section 10202 and add at the end of title XI the 
     following:

     SEC. __. MULTI-SPECIES FRUIT FLY RESEARCH AND STERILE FLY 
                   PRODUCTION.

       (a) Construction.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     construct a warehouse and irradiation containment facility in 
     Waimanalo, Hawaii, to support fruit fly rearing and 
     sterilization activities.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (1) $15,000,000 for the construction of a warehouse and 
     irradiation containment facility pursuant to subsection (a); 
     and
       (2) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and each subsequent 
     fiscal year for maintenance to the facilities constructed 
     pursuant to this section.
       Strike section 11305.
       At the end of subtitle A of title XI add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. __. PARITY FOR ORGANIC CROP ACRES PRICE ELECTIONS, 
                   DOLLAR AMOUNTS OF INSURANCE, AND PREMIUM 
                   DETERMINATION.

       Section 508(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(9) Organics.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, the Secretary may not charge a premium, 
     deductable, or other fee for an insurance policy or plan on 
     crops that are certified organic or transitioning to organic 
     production that is more than the premium, deductable, or 
     other fee for an insurance policy or plan on crops that are 
     not certified organic or transitioning to organic 
     production.''.
       At the end of subtitle C of title XI, add the following new 
     sections:

     SEC. __. MCINTIRE-STENNIS COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ACT.

       Section 2 of Public Law 87-788 (16 U.S.C. 582a-1) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and 1890 Institutions,'' before ``and 
     (b)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``In States that 
     have both 1862 Institutions and 1890 Institutions eligible 
     for and receiving funds under this Act, the institutions 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, develop 
     complementary plans for forestry research in the State. In 
     this section, the terms `1862 Institutions' and `1890 
     Institutions' have the same meanings as in section 2 of the 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
     1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601(2)).''.

     SEC. __. ANIMAL HEALTH AND DISEASE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

        Section 1434(b) of the National Agriculture Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3196(b)) 
     is amended by inserting after ``universities'' the following: 
     ``(including 1890 Institutions (as defined in section 2 of 
     the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform 
     Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601(2))).''.

     SEC. __. CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 
                   NETWORK (CYFERNET) PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.-- In carrying out the Children, Youth, and 
     Families Education and Research Network Program under section 
     3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(d)), the Secretary 
     shall include 1890 Institutions as eligible program 
     applicants and participants.
       (b) 1890 Institutions Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``1890 Institutions'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 2 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601(2)).

     SEC. __. SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED PRODUCERS ACCESS PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment; Purpose.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish and carry out, for each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2013, a program to enhance the viability of minority 
     and socially disadvantaged farmer and ranchers who own or 
     operate agricultural operations by assisting such farmer and 
     ranchers to reduce their risks, improve their access to 
     markets, and better utilize the programs and services of the 
     Department of Agriculture.
       (2) Improved access.--One of the purposes of the program 
     shall be to ensure the viability and success of minority and 
     socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers by promoting the 
     involvement of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in 
     the full range of services to ensure producer access to 
     commodity, credit, risk management and disaster protection, 
     conservation, marketing, nutrition, value-added, rural 
     development, and other programs and services of the 
     Department.
       (3) Accurate reflection of contributions.--Another of the 
     purposes of the program shall be to assure that the number 
     and economic contributions of socially disadvantaged farmers 
     and ranchers are accurately reflected in the census of 
     agriculture.
       (b) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to participate in programs 
     made available under this title, a producer shall--
       (A) be a socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher;
       (B) be a producer who, as an owner, operator, landlord, 
     tenant, sharecropper or enrolled member of an Indian tribe--
       (i) shares in the risk of producing any crop or livestock; 
     and
       (ii) is entitled to share in the crop or livestock 
     available for marketing from a farm (or would have shared had 
     the crop or livestock been produced) or produces more than 50 
     percent of the food needed for family consumption;

[[Page 20870]]

       (C) enter into a risk management and marker access contract 
     with the Secretary to carry out the risk management and 
     market access plan.
       (2) Definitions.--In this section:
       (A) Socially disadvantaged.--The term ``socially 
     disadvantaged'' means, with respect to a farmer or rancher, 
     that the farmer or rancher is a member of a socially 
     disadvantage group.
       (B) Socially disadvantaged group defined.--The term 
     ``socially disadvantaged group'' means a group whose members 
     have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of 
     their identity as members of a group without regard to their 
     individual qualities.
       (c) Producer Payment Structure.--
       (1) Producer development payments.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to provide direct payments to the producers 
     defined under subsection (b) if risk management and market 
     access plans are implemented within any fiscal year pursuant 
     to a plan developed in a fiscal year prior to payment by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Enrollment procedure.--To enroll in this program, an 
     eligible producer must--
       (A) complete and maintain the practices in the 
     qualification level in paragraph (3)(A)(i);
       (B) describe the tier of the risk management and market 
     access plan, and the particular risk management and market 
     access practices to be implemented in accordance with this 
     subsection; and
       (C) identify the qualified technical assistance provider 
     who will serve as a liaison to the Department and supply 
     technical assistance to assure completion of the plan.
       (3) Payment structure.--The Secretary shall make annual 
     producer payments under this title for participation at 1 of 
     the following levels for a period not to exceed a total of 7 
     years, as follows:
       (A) USDA access payments.--The qualification level payment 
     shall be not more than $5,000 with up to $2,500 paid up front 
     if, within the first year, the producer--
       (i) files an IRS schedule F or a qualified substitute for 
     enrolled members of Indian Tribes;
       (ii) registers at the Farm Service Agency office as a farm 
     or rancher, or informs the Secretary the reason for which 
     registration was not allowed;
       (iii) signs up for any crop insurance or NAP programs for 
     which the producer is qualified, or provides a plan to 
     achieve qualification or inform the Secretary if no plan or 
     program exists for the form of production on the farm or 
     ranch; and
       (iv) receives technical assistance to be included in the 
     Minority Farm Registry and complete the next Census of 
     Agriculture.

     The Secretary shall provide to the National Agriculture 
     Statistics Service information sufficient for inclusion of 
     each producer who qualifies under this section in the next 
     census of agriculture.
       (B) Program access payments.--Program access payments shall 
     at least $5000 and not more than $10,000 annually for up to 3 
     years if the producer provides, develops, and implements a 
     plan to complete at least two of following practices in each 
     year:
       (i) a farm and home plan;
       (ii) an estate plan;
       (iii) a risk management plan, including accessing family 
     health insurance;
       (iv) a conservation plan;
       (v) enters into a contract for purchase or sale of farm 
     land;
       (vi) acquires a computer, high-speed internet access, and 
     software, and training in the use of these tools;
       (vii) prepares a plan to transition to another crop or 
     crops;
       (viii) applies for at least one farm program of the 
     Department; or
       (ix) other practices as determined by the Secretary.
       (C) Market access and risk protection payments.--
       (i) Tier one.--Market Access and Risk Protection Payments 
     shall be at least $10,000 and not more than $25,000 annually 
     for up to three years if the producer develops and implements 
     at least two of the following practices in each year:

       (I) Mentor another farmer.
       (II) Seek nomination and election to a Conservation 
     District Board or FSA County Committee.
       (III) Meet standards for Good Agricultural Practices, 
     Organic Certification or other market certifications.
       (IV) Develop and implement a marketing plan or a business 
     plan.
       (V) Access liability or other expanded insurance, including 
     revenue insurance.
       (VI) Access farmers markets or improved marketing 
     contracts.
       (VII) Participate in farmers market nutrition, school food 
     or other nutrition programs.
       (VIII) Develop and implement plan to meet regulatory 
     requirements, including labor, workers compensation, and 
     pesticide health and safety standards, Livestock and Animal 
     ID.
       (IX) Seek irrigation and other production assistance, Land 
     or waste management.
       (X) Other practices as determined by the Secretary.

       (iii) Tier two.--Market Access and Risk Protection Payments 
     shall be not more than to $35,000 annually for up to three 
     years if the producer completes at least two of the following 
     practices in each year:

       (I) Develop or participate in a cooperative or marketing 
     association.
       (II) Develop a value-added enterprise.
       (III) Implements improve marketing strategies, including 
     development of brands and innovative forms of marketing by 
     web or other means.
       (IV) Develop infrastructure or processing capacity.
       (V) Enhance the participation of a cooperative or a group 
     of farmers in nutrition and health programs.
       (VI) Construct or improve housing for farmworkers.
       (VII) Enter into direct contracts to secure adequate labor 
     to meet production needs.
       (VIII) Protect of land use and development rights.
       (IX) Other practices as determined by the Secretary.

       (d) Technical Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2013, the Secretary shall provide technical assistance 
     through qualified technical assistance providers to producers 
     for the development and implementation of a risk management 
     and market access plans at each tier.
       (2) Technical assistance provider.--In this section, the 
     term ``technical assistance provider'' is an organization or 
     educational institutions that qualifies as an eligible entity 
     under section 2501(e)(5) of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(e)(5)).
       (3) Qualified technical assistance provider.--In this 
     section, the term ``qualified technical assistance provider'' 
     means a technical assistance provider that has been 
     recognized by the Risk Management Agency as qualified to 
     provide the service in this program.
       (4) Limitations.--A qualified technical service provider 
     shall not receive payment for services in excess of--
       (A) $2,000, for services under subsection (c)(3)(A);
       (B) $3,000, for services under subsection (c)(3)(B); or
       (C) $4,000, for services under subsection (c)(3)(C).
       (f) Duties of the Secretary.--
       (1) Office of small farms coordination.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall establish an office of Small Farm 
     Coordination, which shall be led by the Small Farms 
     Coordinator, who shall be a career employee.
       (2) Duties.--The Secretary may delegate to the Small Farms 
     Coordinator responsibility for the following:
       (A) Administering the program established under subsection 
     (a).
       (B) Administering the activities established under 
     Departmental Regulation 9700-1 issued on August 3, 2006, in 
     coordination with any other office, agency, or mission area 
     as deemed necessary by the Secretary to facilitate the 
     implementation of the programs under this section, and other 
     such duties as assigned to assure the Department best 
     understands, meets, and prioritizes the needs of small, 
     socially disadvantaged, and beginning and new entry farmers.
       (C) Other duties deemed appropriate by the Secretary.
       (3) Outreach.--The Secretary shall use not less than 
     $1,000,000 annually from funding under this section to 
     support consultation, training, and liaison activities with 
     qualified technical assistance providers under subsection 
     (b).
       (4) Staffing and administration.--The Secretary shall 
     provide not less than 10 staff positions within the Office of 
     Small Farms Coordination at headquarters in Washington and 
     not less than 10 field staff for the Office as the Secretary 
     deems necessary to implement this program, with additional 
     field staff provided in States where the number of applicants 
     exceeds 500 to conduct administration of this program.
       (5) Regulations.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     promulgate regulations to carry out this subsection.
       (g) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary shall make available $80,000,000 
     to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012.
       At the end of title XI, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON USE OF SAVINGS FOR DEFICIT 
                   REDUCTION.

       It is the sense of the Congress that any budgetary savings 
     created as a result of this Act will be used to reduce the 
     Federal budget deficit and not used to offset other Federal 
     spending.
       Strike the title of the bill entitled ``PREVENTION OF TAX 
     TREATY EXPLOITATION TO EVADE UNITED STATES TAXATION''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

[[Page 20871]]


  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for purposes of 
this debate that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) be allowed to 
control 10 minutes of my 20 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, this farm bill is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation before this Congress in this session because it truly does 
affect us all.

                              {time}  2100

  It affects our family farmers. It affects consumers in America. It 
affects our wildlife and natural resources. It affects people who are 
hungry, both in this country and abroad, and it affects economic 
development opportunities in rural America but also in the developing 
world, and it affects my home State in Wisconsin, where agriculture is 
still the number one industry. I know, I have a 200-acre farm in 
western Wisconsin where we rotate corn and soybeans. I've got beef 
cattle on it from time to time.
  But for too long farm policy has resulted in billions of dollars of 
subsidies going to a few, but very large and very wealthy entities who 
then gobble up family farms around them, drive up land values and make 
it virtually impossible for new beginning farmers to enter the 
business. These subsidies have distorted the marketplace, and they 
distort our trade policies. Too many farmers have planted for the 
government paycheck instead of the marketplace. This has got to change.
  But instead of heeding the call for reasonable, justifiable reform in 
light of current market prices, the farm bill before us fails to even 
make token reforms under the Title I commodity programs. In fact, they 
still allow taxpayer-supported subsidies to go to individuals in this 
country with an adjusted gross income of $1 million. Over the next 5 
years, there will be $26 billion in direct subsidy payments going out 
to commodity producers who are getting at or near record prices in the 
marketplace. And under these direct payments, the committee raises the 
cap from $40,000 to $60,000 and allows multiple entities on the same 
farm to collect the same type of subsidies. It also eliminates the cap 
with the loan deficiency program.
  It's a missed opportunity. In fact, what we have before us today is a 
bipartisan, fair, reform amendment that takes light of the market 
conditions and offers reasonable and justifiable reforms under a very 
simple proposition: Let's give our family farmers help when they need 
it; let's not when they don't.
  What we propose in our amendment would be phasing out these direct 
payments that were meant to be temporary in the 1996 farm bill, and now 
we're in the third farm bill, and they're increasing these subsidy 
payments and lifting the caps.
  We also replace the current countercyclical program with a true 
safety net, a revenue-based safety net that even the corn growers have 
been working on as a replacement over the last few years.
  We also place a tighter income limit at $250,000 adjusted gross, even 
slightly above the administration's own $200,000 limit that they 
recommend.
  Plus, we call for long-overdue reform with the crop insurance program 
based on the good work that our friends Mr. Cooper and Mr. Waxman have 
been doing in this, and we all do this under justifiable market 
conditions, ending up with a farm bill at the end of the day that does 
not distort our market, nor our trade policies.
  For too long family farmers have suffered due to the inequities of 
this farm bill, and with the savings that we use to reform the Title I 
programs, we make significant new investments in other priority areas. 
We have a $6 billion increase in funding under the nutrition title to 
deal with hunger in America.
  We have a $3 billion increase of voluntary incentive conservation 
programs, when today three out of every four farmers applying for 
conservation funding assistance are turned away because of inadequacy 
of funds.
  We have a $1.2 billion increase for specialty crops above what the 
committee did, and a healthy food program to combat the obesity 
epidemic which is ravishing our Nation.
  We also have $1.1 billion in guaranteed funding out of the McGovern-
Dole bill and $500 million for minority and disadvantaged farmers, $200 
million increase for rural development to create economic job 
opportunities throughout rural America.
  And at the end of the reform, we even have money for deficit 
reduction. How refreshing that we may have a bill coming out of this 
Congress that actually reforms enough to have some left over to reduce 
the massive budget deficits and prepare for the aging of our Nation.
  What's really nice about this is it is all paid for. We don't have to 
go to the Ways and Means Committee or the Financial Services Committee 
to seek offsets in order to pay for these other priorities and still 
provide a safety net for our family farmers. This amendment gets us out 
of the box that my Republican friends find themselves in in not being 
able to support a tax increase to finance this farm bill.
  And you guys are exactly right. If you had been pulling this on us 
while we were in the minority, we would be raising bloody hell as well, 
because if you lose the process in the place, you lose a sense of 
fairness, and if you don't have fairness at the end of the day, you 
can't get things done.
  We're saying we don't have to go down that road. Let's make some 
commonsense reforms to find the offsets to deal with the other 
priorities while still maintaining a proper safety net so when the 
farmers are in trouble, if market prices plummet, there will be a 
safety net for them; but let's not do it when they don't need it, so we 
can go home and look the taxpayers in the eyes and justify exactly what 
we're doing here.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) be permitted to 
control half the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize 
the gentlelady from South Dakota, a great member of our committee, Ms. 
Herseth Sandlin, for 1 minute.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment because it eviscerates 
the safety net for my constituents and destroys the delicate balance 
achieved in the committee bill which reflects significant and 
meaningful reform and is supported by the broadest coalition of 
stakeholders.
  I believe that the bill has been unfairly characterized by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin in a number of ways, but just as one example, 
how can there be no reform in the commodity title when in this bill, 
the committee bill, there's a 43 percent reduction in the commodity 
title and a 32.3 percent increase in the commodity title?
  But if you don't believe me, consider who has endorsed this amendment 
offered by Mr. Kind and Mr. Flake: Club for Growth, long advocated to 
eliminate farm payment programs and destroy the safety net; and the 
Bush administration, who long opposed disaster assistance for farmers 
and ranchers devastated by natural disaster, long opposed the mandatory 
country of origin labeling program. Both Club for Growth and the Bush 
administration prioritize multinational corporations' international 
trading interests just like the administration is now supporting 
foreign companies who avoid paying U.S. taxes over my constituents.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, let me just say before yielding to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, the drop in 40

[[Page 20872]]

percent that is claimed by the committee is actually taking credit for 
high prices of corn and other commodities. There's no cut at all. So 
this is not reform.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment for a number of reasons. Number one, it's high time we reform 
our agricultural programs which are Depression-era. This is a modest 
amendment from the original aggressive reforms. It puts in place the 
reforms that the USDA experts said that we ought to put in place for 
the safety net.
  Let me just address what the safety net really is. Should we or 
should we not give million-dollar checks to farmers making $1 million? 
Should we have a farm program that helps the family farmer at a time 
when they're struggling? Should those payments go to farmers when 
they're making record high prices, when they're doing well? Or should 
these programs go to them when they're hurting? That's what this 
amendment does.
  This amendment also pays for itself; no budget gimmicks, no timing 
shift, no tax increases. It actually reduces the deficit by $2 billion 
in 5 years and $14 billion over 10. It actually boosts conservation. It 
actually boosts nutrition.
  Let me just address the payment limit. This bill right here says we 
will allow farmers to have aggregate program payments that are at least 
12 times the poverty rate. Isn't that high enough? The average poverty 
rate for a family of four is $20,500. This amendment says let's allow 
the farm payment to a family of four be as high as a quarter of a 
million dollars. Yet the committee's bill says, no, that's not good 
enough. It has to be unlimited in some senses or a million-dollar AGI 
for others.
  Madam Chairman, let's get our priorities straight. Lets have a farm 
bill that doesn't distort our trade posture in the international 
community. If we pass the base bill, it hurts us internationally to get 
better trade agreements and open markets for our farmers. If we pass 
the base bill, it hurts us from helping people in the developing world 
lift their lives out of poverty.
  If you vote for the Kind-Flake amendment, you will help us 
internationally open markets to farmers, you will preserve a modern 
safety net that helps farmers when they need it and the family farmers 
when they need it, and you will save money for the taxpayer, you will 
put savings in nutrition, you will put savings in conservation, and you 
will help reduce the deficit.
  This is a responsible amendment. It's a responsible bill. It is the 
right way forward, and this is what really, truly, needy family farms 
need. We don't need to be cutting checks in the seven-figure range for 
people with AGIs, adjusted gross incomes, of $1 million. We need to say 
12 times the poverty rate's enough. That's what we need to say, and by 
voting for this amendment, that's what we are saying.
  Help the family farmer, help conservation, help nutrition and reduce 
the deficit. Vote for this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, I'll say one good thing about this amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Arizona: It 
doesn't raise taxes. But I'll say nothing else good about it because it 
rips the safety net out from under America's farmers and ranchers.
  The House Agriculture Committee bill is the result of careful 
consideration. The committee reviewed many options and took the 
testimony of countless witnesses at hearings in Washington and in 
multiple States. The committee chose to maintain a safety net that has 
proven very effective since 2002, but it's done so with reform.
  The committee included in the safety net the option for producers to 
choose a priority of the administration, a revenue-based, 
countercyclical program.
  The committee also drastically modified rules related to payment 
limits and income levels for participation. No one with a 3-year 
average gross adjusted income over $1 million may participate in the 
commodity program. That is down from $2.5 million for producers with 
AGI between $500,000 and $1 million; 66\2/3\ percent of their income 
must come from agriculture. These are major changes from the 2002 farm 
bill.
  Additionally, the committee has done away with the three-entity rule. 
Now producers can receive payments on only one business entity.
  The committee made significant reforms. By cutting $16 billion over 5 
years, a 40 percent cut, this amendment shatters the farm safety net. 
This amendment cuts the safety net provided by direct payments by about 
$11 billion over 5 years, or 42 percent.
  The amendment cuts the most basic level of support for farmers and 
ranchers, the marketing assistance loan, by $2 billion over 5 years, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  The committee was able to make significant increases in conservation, 
nutrition, rural development, research, fruits and vegetables, and in 
other areas without ripping out the safety net from America's farmers 
and ranchers, but the Kind-Flake-Ryan-Blumenauer amendment makes 
increases in those areas at the expense of American farmers.
  The committee's commitment to conservation is unquestionable. The 
committee-passed bill increases conservation spending by over $4 
billion over the next 5 years. We added over $1.9 billion to 
environmental quality incentive programs, which helps farmers and 
ranchers comply with State, Federal and local environmental laws.
  We also continued our commitment to highly erodible land, wetlands, 
grasslands and wildlife habitat by funding the Conservation Reserve 
Program, the Wetland Reserve Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, 
and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.
  The committee increased the commitment to preserving working farms by 
increasing funding to the Farmland Ranchland Protection Program by 
almost 300 percent.
  The committee also focused efforts to help producers such as 
specialty crop and livestock producers who do not participate in 
traditional commodity programs.
  We took an unprecedented step of committing $150 million over the 
next 5 years to help clean up the rivers of the Chesapeake Bay.
  We do not need this amendment. Oppose it.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, just to give you an indication of how 
effective the current safety net is, it was recently discovered there 
was $1.1 billion in subsidy payments that went out to farmers who had 
already passed away.
  Now, I want to recognize for 2 minutes a champion of family farmers 
and an advocate for reasonable, justifiable reform, my friend from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
courtesy. I appreciate his leadership. Along with our friend from 
Arizona and from Wisconsin, we have before you a real opportunity to 
make a difference.
  Now, my heart goes out to the committee. They had a tough job. They 
went, I think, as far as they could, given the dynamics they had. Some 
of the things they did I strongly support and, in fact, have worked 
for. Those good items are now all protected under our initiative. In 
fact, many of them are actually enhanced.

                              {time}  2115

  They are enhanced not by throwing money at it, but by actually having 
real reform; not talking about reform, not moving towards reform, but 
actually doing it. Our bipartisan amendment is paid for, and it does so 
by helping most farmers.
  My State of Oregon is an example. Under this initiative, we will gain 
more than $140 million in every congressional district over the life of 
this effort. We do this not by new taxes and

[[Page 20873]]

new programs; we change the dynamic. No longer will 80 percent of 
America's farmers and ranchers get little or nothing. No longer will we 
have, in this case, a sham, I'm sorry to say, payment limitation that 
will only affect one-tenth of a percent of America's farmers, those who 
are at $1 million, it will only save $45 million, which shows you that 
it doesn't have much impact.
  I would say that any farmer who can't get their adjusted gross income 
under $1 million probably needs to look for a new CPA, not a new 
subsidy. We stop the lunacy in a time of record high corn prices. We 
are going to give them 10 more billion dollars. If we don't give them 
10 more billion dollars in a time of record high corn prices, we are 
going to shred the safety net? I would argue, not. Have a real limit, 
help the budget, and, most important, help America's family farmers.
  Pass this amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I recognize Chairman 
Etheridge for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kind-Flake 
amendment.
  The sponsors of this amendment like to argue that passage of the 
amendment would help pave the way for new trade agreements. That is 
naive thinking.
  Our trade negotiators are engaged in WTO trade talks in a bid to open 
up foreign markets for U.S. agriculture products and reduce, if not 
eliminate, trade distorting foreign subsides. The cuts in the farm 
safety net that the Kind-Flake amendment impose are tantamount to 
unilateral disarmament.
  During the Cold War, we would never have cut our military strength 
without first extracting similar if not greater reductions from the 
Soviets. We should do no less in today's trade negotiations.
  Cutting our farm support will not lead to a WTO agreement. As the 
current negotiations have shown, any time the United States gives a 
little on its trade position, our trading partners ask us to give more.
  Trying to create a farm bill that will please a WTO negotiator from 
another country is the wrong approach. The farm bill is for helping 
U.S. farmers.
  Who supports the Kind-Flake amendment, groups who mistakenly believe 
that unilateral cuts will spark a trade deal.
  Who opposes the Kind-Flake amendment, farm and commodity groups 
across the nation.
  When it comes to farm policy, I am going to stand with the farmers. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the Kind-Flake amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), a great member of 
our committee.
  Mr. COSTA. Madam Chairman, I want to thank you and the ranking member 
and the members of the committee for the hard work on a bipartisan 
basis that really produced, I think, a good product.
  Unfortunately, I have to rise against the Kind amendment, not because 
it does involve reform, but I think it involves reform in a way that 
uses a meat ax and does not provide transition for American farmers, 
something I think I know something about.
  You see, I represent a third-generation farm family that has been 
farming in the San Joaquin Valley since the turn of the 19th, early 
20th century. What this bill does, what this amendment does, if it were 
to be enacted, is not provide the level of nutrition or research and 
competitiveness for food safety and conservation that the underlying 
bill has, which is why I support the underlying bill, because it 
provides real reform. It provides nutrition. It provides the efforts to 
make American farmers more competitive on a global basis with global 
markets, provides reform in a host of areas.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I urge that you vote for the underlying bill. 
Vote against the Kind amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, let me just say that the direct payments 
were never intended as a safety net. They were meant to wean farmers 
off of the dole. If our parents worked as hard as this committee in 
weaning their children, we would all still be living in our parents' 
basement. It doesn't work to continue and continue and continue on with 
this.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank our colleagues 
for their crusade in offering real reform for the American people. I am 
proud to be a part of this unique coalition of Members in support of 
this amendment.
  Why is a Member representing a suburban area of Seattle taking such 
an interest in the farm bill? The farm bill isn't just for farmers. 
It's funded by and affects every one of us across America.
  The underlying bill leaves American farmers and businesses open to 
challenges from the World Trade Organization. Trade is critical, 
crucial to our State and our farmers. One in three jobs in Washington 
State is linked to trade. This amendment is a critical step to bringing 
us into trade compliance so that our farmers and businesses have access 
to markets around the world.
  Currently, 19 congressional districts receive 50 percent of Federal 
farm subsidies; 348 congressional districts would benefit positively 
from this amendment. Every district in my State would benefit. The 
Washington Post referred to farm subsidies as Federal giveaways that 
cost all Americans but benefit few.
  This amendment funds many other American priorities; $1.2 billion to 
promote healthy food choices, $3 billion more to conservation programs, 
and $1 billion more to support fruit and vegetable producers.
  This amendment saves money, brings us closer to trade compliance. It 
does all this without raising taxes. In fact, it saves taxpayers $2 
billion.
  We can't continue business as usual. Our taxpayers deserve an 
equitable balance. The time is now for reform.
  I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind 
amendment.
  This amendment, I believe, is a threat to producers, consumers and 
rural America. We must do everything we can to defeat this amendment. 
The amendment destroys the commodity title, in essence, as we know it.
  I know it's not as strong as the language they started out with a few 
days ago, but it starts us down that trail. By cutting the direct 
payments by 42 percent, by completely revealing, in effect, the 
counter-cyclical program, this is completely unacceptable and would do 
more harm to production agriculture than anything I can think of.
  We in agriculture understand that the commodity title is much more 
than just producers. It's about providing the American consumer with 
the highest quality, the safest supply of food and fiber in the history 
of the world.
  We have done that. In fact, we in the United States have the most 
affordable food supply in the world. We Americans spend 10 percent of 
our disposable income on food, while other countries spend as much as 
51 percent on their food.
  This is no accident. This is because we have created sound 
agricultural policy over the last 75 years. We have had 10 good years 
of agriculture policy in particular. We need to continue to build on 
that. If we can't, well, if we gut the foundation that we have created 
in past farm bills, then ultimately not only will rural America suffer 
for this, the American consumer will suffer for this, with higher 
prices, instability in supply, and that role that we have occupied for 
a century as the grainery, the reserve food stock for the world, will 
be gone.
  I think, I believe, my colleagues are sincere in what they do. But 
sometimes sincerity does not generate clear, thoughtful, practical 
policy. Reject their version of sincerity. Let's focus on the policy 
that has delivered so much to the American consumer and rural America.
  Reject this amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, 5 years ago, when we passed

[[Page 20874]]

the Freedom to Farm Act, we were promised that it would clean up the 
subsidy programs that really dated back to the era of the Depression. 
It didn't. In fact, in many ways it made matters worse. I don't think 
we can wait another 5 years before we have fundamental reform.
  The fact is that back in the 1930s, 25 percent of our population 
lived on farms. Today it's less than 2 percent. Today, corn, cotton, 
wheat, rice and soybeans count for 90 percent of our government 
commodity payments, and yet it leaves fruits and vegetables, which 
represent two-thirds of farm sales, ineligible for support. The largest 
farms that comprise only 3 percent of the total farms get the vast 
majority of crop subsidies today.
  It just seems to me that it's time for fundamental reform that more 
fairly distributes the benefits of this program to all of America's 
deserving farms and families. That's why I support the Kind amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), one of our great new members of 
the committee.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Kind amendment and 
in opposition to any amendment trying to destroy the farm bill.
  My family still farms the same land that my ancestors settled back 
150 years ago. As one of only a few ranchers and farmers in Congress, I 
know a thing or two about agriculture. The farm bill provides a much-
deserved safety net for our farmers, but it also provides a much-needed 
safety net for American citizens.
  On this bumper sticker it says ``Not everyone farms, but everyone 
eats.'' The Kind amendment will make it even more difficult for our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers to stay in business, forcing us to rely 
on foreign production to feed our growing Nation. Do you really want to 
rely on other countries to produce our food? Look at the trouble we 
have gotten into for relying on other countries for the oil that we 
need. I, for one, would not want to buy or feed my children food 
harvested in China.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against the Kind amendment. Please keep 
America safe and sound.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I rise tonight as one who typically comes to this 
floor to champion the cause of fiscal conservatism. But tonight, 
perhaps more importantly, I come here as the grandson of a farmer. I 
come here as the son of a farmer. I come here as one who grew up 
working on the family farm.
  I have looked at the work of Mr. Flake and Mr. Kind, and I believe 
that this amendment is the one that is best for agriculture, and I 
think it is the one that is best for taxpayers. I don't like everything 
in this amendment. There is a lot I don't like about it. But I have got 
to ask myself, does it take me in a direction I want to go or does it 
take me in a direction I don't want to go? I think this work takes me 
in the direction I want to go, because it provides real reform. If you 
have got a program that's costing taxpayers $20 billion a year, maybe 
you need some reform.
  If 10 percent of the recipients are receiving 33 percent of the egg, 
maybe you need some reform. If most of the subsidies are going to 
commercial farmers that have average incomes above $200,000, maybe you 
need some real reform.
  Very importantly, for the agriculture producers in the Fifth District 
of Texas, our future is in exports. We want to export good Texas beef, 
and I'm afraid the committee bill is going to hurt trade. It will hurt 
trade.
  We need to support this alternative.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Madam Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to the Kind-Flake 
amendment.
  We are looking at a time where we have concerns about trade. We have 
to realize that cutting direct payments raids our most WTO-compliant 
and nondistorting mechanism that stabilizes the United States 
agriculture and rural economies. These direct payments are decoupled 
from production.
  Some people don't know this, but they do not encourage 
overproduction. This amendment would weaken us in our position in trade 
negotiations through a unilateral disarmament on agriculture policy.
  I really believe that this threatens the long-term viability and 
competitiveness of U.S. agriculture in a global marketplace still 
characterized by subsidized foreign competition and continued trade 
barriers. In rural America, this would reduce our land values, our tax 
base, and cause potential disruptions and collateral for our farm 
loans.
  Immediately, we would see farm equity disappear. The Americans have 
expectations of a safe, affordable food supply. Oppose the Kind-Flake 
amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to an advocate of much-
overdue reform of the crop insurance program, the gentleman from 
Tennessee, my good friend, Mr. Cooper.
  Mr. COOPER. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Chairman, for anyone interested in reforming crop insurance, 
there are two ways to do it tonight. This way through comprehensive 
agriculture reform, the Kind amendment, is probably the best way to do 
it. But there will be another way to do it later on. We need to reform 
crop insurance.
  Everyone who has studied it realizes it. The question is when. I 
suggest the time is now, because there are literally billions of 
dollars of corporate welfare we can and must be saving starting 
tonight. These 16 companies, there are only 16 companies, made $2.8 
billion, at taxpayer expense, profit in the last 5 years. It's an 
outrageous system once you look into it.
  The GAO and others discovered that 40 cents of every dollar that is 
supposed to go to the farmer, in fact, goes to the insurance middleman. 
This is not right. We need to get more money to the farmers, not less. 
Let's reform the crop insurance system. The Kind amendment is the right 
way to do it. Another way to do it will be the Cooper amendment.
  Support the Kind amendment.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize 
the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney), one of our 
great new members of the committee, for 1 minute.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Chairman, as a freshman Member of this 
Congress and someone who until this past January had never held 
political office, I came to Washington determined to change the culture 
of this august body. I believed that we could work together and, in 
doing so, put the interests of the American people over the political 
interests of party or the special interests of powerful lobbyists.
  Just a few days ago at a press conference, I proudly stood and 
thanked my Republican colleagues in supporting a bill that clearly was 
a victory for American agriculture. It was a victory for our growers 
and ranchers; it was a victory for the people of Okeechobee, Lake 
Placid, Moore Haven, and Clewiston, Florida. This morning I awoke and 
found out that my Republican colleagues had changed their minds because 
the President of the United States again wanted to play politics. This 
is not about a tax increase. This is about politics.
  As a businessman who, for 30 years, ran businesses around the globe, 
I am incensed that my colleagues would hurt the American farmer by 
lying to the American people and call closing a tax loophole for 
foreign companies and giving them an unfair advantage over our own 
businesses a tax increase. But silly me, why should I have been 
surprised? They are the party of special

[[Page 20875]]

interests, Halliburton, Big Oil, and now they are the party of big 
foreign corporations.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to tell the 
gentleman from Florida this is the party of American jobs, of American 
investment, of American workers. And we are going to protect that by 
not supporting tax increases that will cause a disincentive for 
investment in this country, that will cost jobs, that will involve the 
violation of American treaties, and will cause retaliation in foreign 
countries where we will face increased taxes on American investment 
there as well. This is a tax increase, pure and simple, and that is why 
we will not turn our backs on the American people and their jobs.
  At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chairman, I rise tonight in strong opposition 
to the Kind amendment. The Kind amendment may be kind to someone, but 
it is not to American farm families.
  You see, what is happening in America today is that we have already 
asked American farm families to make a reduction. Mr. Kind wants to 
reduce farm payments 40 percent. Well, that is on top of the 50 percent 
that they have already been reduced.
  For America to be competitive in the global marketplace, farmers and 
ranchers all across America have had to get larger. To be competing in 
this global economy, the efficiencies of running $150,000 farm 
machinery across small acreages is no longer feasible. And yet what Mr. 
Kind and his friends want to do is to make American agriculture not 
competitive.
  You see, to be competitive in this world, you have to find economic 
efficiencies, and these efficiencies have meant that many producers 
have had to get larger. And as they are trying to compete in a global 
marketplace where in many cases they are locked out because of trade 
restraints in these other countries, now we want to say to the American 
ranchers and farmers: Don't be efficient. Don't be competitive in this 
global marketplace. We want to take away the ability for you to be 
sustained in a global marketplace.
  That is not good policy for any business. We don't do that in any 
other area of our government today. We don't say to American companies, 
why don't you all get small and inefficient? We don't tell them to do 
that. We say, get strong and efficient. And yet the Kind amendment 
wants to say to American farmers don't be efficient.
  I urge members not to support the Kind amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kind amendment. 
This amendment will reduce the safety net for U.S. farmers and result 
in a less secure and more expensive food supply for Americans.
  There has been a lot of discussion about the need for ``reform'' in 
farm programs. I suggest the so-called reformers out there get better 
acquainted with the facts:
  First, the portion of spending in the 2007 Farm Bill that goes to 
farm commodity programs has declined by half, to 14 percent of the 
spending in the bill. In the 2002 Farm Bill, the share of spending for 
commodities was 28 percent.
  Second, in 2002, commodity programs were projected to cost $94 
billion over 5 years. As the 2002 Farm Bill comes to a close, actual 
spending will come in $21 billion less.
  Finally, because spending has been lower and is projected to stay 
low, the cost projection for the next 10 years for farm commodity 
programs is down nearly $60 billion compared to 2002.
  Farm programs have worked as intended, providing support when prices 
are low and pulling back when prices are high, as most currently are. 
Maintaining the farm safety net has a reasonable cost.
  Farm programs are the only area in H.R. 2419 in which spending is 
down. On top of these reductions, the Ag Committee took the additional 
step of reforming farm program payment policies and crop Insurance.
  The Kind amendment doesn't save any money. It simply puts what it 
cuts from farm programs into expanding other spending.
  A final reason for not cutting these programs off: maintaining U.S. 
leverage in trade negotiations.
  U.S. farmers' and ranchers' exports are currently shut out of markets 
around the world. Without a significant market access agreement in the 
WTO Doha round negotiations, U.S. producers will continue to be at a 
disadvantage. The only leverage our negotiators have to gain new market 
access is to offer to change farm programs.
  If Congress unilaterally reduces farm programs through the Kind 
amendment, our negotiators' efforts to gain market access are 
completely undercut and will be ineffective.
  Support U.S. farmers and consumers and oppose the Kind amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. The Kind-Flake Fairness in Farm and Food Policy amendment 
is one of the most remarkable developments in this Congress in years. 
This is real bipartisan reform in a major area of our government, 
agriculture.
  As a Republican I have been astonished with the absolute fixation my 
own party has had on the Depression-era price-guarantee program. As an 
observer of Democrats, I have been astonished with their willingness to 
support a big-business-favored program.
  The Kind-Flake substitute brings us into the modern age. It helps 
farmers, it helps consumers, it helps taxpayers. I am so proud to have 
the opportunity to speak in favor of it.
  This bipartisan amendment would replace depression-era price 
guarantees with a modern revenue-based safety net developed by 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) experts that better protects family 
farmers from declines in crop prices and crop yields.
  The bill also reforms our government-subsidized crop insurance 
program to fairly share the costs and risks of this program with crop 
insurance agents and companies, and gradually reduce direct payments.
  The amendment invests some of these savings in new conservation, 
nutrition and specialty crop and minority farmer priorities.
  The remaining savings are dedicated to deficit reduction of $2 
billion over five years, and at least $10 billion over 10 years.
  A unique coalition of members and advocacy groups from both sides of 
the aisle have united to advocate for these reforms to commodity 
programs to make them more equitable and geared toward family farms 
instead of a very few large and wealthy entities.
  The bottom line is, we need new farm and food policies, and we have 
it in this Kind/Flake fairness in Form & Food Policy Amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this Fairness Amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I recognize myself for 1 
minute.
  This so-called reform bill, we just got the CBO score. First of all, 
it changes the payment limits based on the 2002 bill. So, the effect of 
this bill is to have no limitation on payments at all, number one.
  We are writing a 10-year baseline, not a 5-year bill. This bill cuts 
conservation 37\1/2\ percent below our baseline over 10 years. It 
actually takes less out of crop insurance by 13.5 percent compared to 
our bill over 10 years. And this is what happens when people aren't on 
the Agriculture Committee and get involved in this very complex area. 
If this is a reform bill, if this is freedom to farm, we would have a 
heck of a mess in farm country.
  So we just got this score. We wish we could have got this out 
earlier. We got it about 2 hours ago, and I just want people to know 
what this bill actually does. It does not do what some people have been 
saying.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I 
support his amendment because it does bring both fairness to the 
American farmer and also to the American taxpayer, and it does so by 
dispelling certain myths that are out there.
  This program started in 1933 as an emergency program that was 
supposed to be temporary. Well, 70, 80 years later and this temporary 
program is still with us. It started out as a program that was supposed 
to be for the small farmers, like we have in the State of New Jersey 
still, actually, and yet we find that three-quarters of the farmers

[[Page 20876]]

are getting 10 percent of the program. The small farmers are just 
getting a slice of it. It is supposed to be going out for the small 
farmers and the farmers who are only making a small income, to help the 
family farm, yet we see that the average income of these farmers for 
the large sales are making $199,000.
  This amendment helps to dispel the myth to make sure that we get a 
program that actually helps the family farmer and helps the American 
taxpayer at the same time. I support the amendment of the gentleman 
from Arizona.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank Mr. Goodlatte for yielding.
  The subcommittee rejected this bill's predecessor on a 0-18 vote. 
There were no hearings on this activity. We have already heard the 
chairman say that the unintended consequences just of the scoring of 
this has not been done.
  This speaks to the fallacy of coming to this body tonight with a 
policy that is as broad and important for America as farm policy and to 
try to fix it with 20 minutes of debate on each side. It is just 
nonsense. This did not go through any hearings. We had field hearings, 
we had committee hearings, we had testimony from experts, we had 
testimony from producers throughout this process. And while that may 
have come to a result they don't like, it at least came to a result 
that has broad support.
  This process that they are bringing to us tonight should be subjected 
to the same scrutiny, to the same opportunity to look at what it does 
and what it does not do that all of the farm bill that we are looking 
at tonight does. They have not done that, and they have a lot of 
unintended consequences, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kind 
amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, may I ask the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Let me just pay tribute first to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for the hard work in bringing this amendment and 
being the lead sponsor to the floor.
  It strikes me that the committee in this case, as the saying goes, is 
traipsing down a flower-strewn path unpricked by the thorns of reason.
  We are running headlong, whether we like it or not, into 
international trade agreements that will not coexist with the status 
quo bill. We cannot move forward and maintain the access we have to 
world markets or increase access to other world markets with this bill. 
We simply can't. Nor can we maintain the fiscal burden carrying this 
forward.
  We need a real reform bill, a reform bill that really looks out for 
family farms, as opposed to protecting those who are gobbling up family 
farms. That is what this reform bill is all about.
  Members of this body have wanted an opportunity to vote for a bill 
that doesn't increase taxes, that has real reform. This is that chance. 
This is the amendment. This is the chance to actually do that.
  We need real reform, reform that allows us to go forward, that allows 
the American farmer to actually become independent and independently 
competitive globally. The status quo bill, the committee bill, just 
doesn't do that. It doesn't cut direct payments. As much as we have 
heard that tonight, it doesn't. High prices have done that. There is no 
cut in direct payments at all here. Only prices have done that.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize 
my good friend, the distinguished member from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for 
1 minute.
  Mr. BERRY. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. I can't say enough 
good things about the wonderful work he has done as chairman of this 
committee. He can be forever proud of the way he has brought the real 
bill together.
  It is an interesting thing that the people that have risen in support 
of the Kind amendment, which I oppose, none of them serve on the 
committee. None of them have recognized that the committee bill passed 
by unanimous consent out of the committee. That, in and of itself, is 
enough for us to support the committee bill.
  The only reason for a farm bill and to have farm and food policy is 
to ensure adequate production and processing capacity so that the 
American people have enough to eat and clothes on their back. The 
committee bill does this; the Kind amendment destroys that safety net 
that has made that possible.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize 
the gentlelady from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda), one of our new members of the 
committee, a great Member of the House, for 1 minute.
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I thank the chairman for all the hard work that 
has gone into this bill.
  I rise in opposition to the Kind amendment. I believe, actually, that 
they are doing it with the best of intentions, but what will happen to 
independent and small farmers in Kansas is not a good thing, and I will 
not be able to support it.
  But, Madam Chairman, I would also like to talk today about something 
that I have been speaking about in Kansas for now 4 years, and that is 
closing the loopholes on these corporations that move offshore just to 
avoid taxes. The people in Kansas certainly are not happy that this has 
been allowed to go on for year after year. And I am proud to work on 
the farm bill, what I thought was a very bipartisan group, and I get to 
kill two birds with one stone, hopefully, and that is to bring home a 
farm policy that is going to be a very good thing for our country and 
for Kansas farmers, and we get to finally close a loophole that should 
have been closed years and years ago.
  The bottom line is we can't borrow and spend. We have to pay for the 
things that we want. It is a bipartisan bill, it is not a tax increase, 
and I ask my colleagues to support our farm bill.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space), one of our other new Members, and 
a great member of the committee, for 1 minute.
  Mr. SPACE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Kind 
amendment, and I do so on behalf of the farmers of Ohio's 18th 
Congressional District. They are a very diverse bunch, but one thing 
they all have in common is that they are small, family-run operations.
  They asked for several things in this farm bill: conservation, 
energy, and a safety net. This bill as it has come out of committee 
provides those things that will allow those farmers to continue to do 
business. Those farmers operate on extremely narrow margins, and 
without a safety net that mitigates their risks, they can no longer do 
business.
  Madam Chairman, the people of this country are already experiencing 
increased rates for gasoline, for utilities, for health care. The last 
thing that we can afford in this country is to see a spike in the price 
of food.
  Madam Chairman, I rise once again in opposition to the Kind amendment 
and in favor of the bill as it has come out of the committee.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, we have no further speakers on the 
legislation. I yield back.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to recognize 
for 1 minute my good friend and neighbor from Minnesota, a new member 
of our committee, Mr. Walz.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the chairman and my good friend for 
the work he's done, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia, the ranking member for making the experience in the Ag 
Committee as rewarding as it's been.
  I rise in opposition to my good friend from Wisconsin's piece of 
legislation. It's well meaning, but I believe it does not address the 
needs of my district. The people of the First District of Minnesota, I 
think, can probably lay claim to one of the richest agricultural pieces 
of land in the entire world. We lead in production of soybeans, near 
the top in corn production, turkeys and pork.

[[Page 20877]]

  This is a bill that is supported. I had 14 hearings throughout my 
district with universal acceptance of making sure the safety net is 
maintained, improving our conservation programs and strengthening rural 
America.
  When I hear about record high prices, the people of this Chamber and 
the people of America need to know the price of corn has dropped 25 
percent in the last month. Farmers know it won't always remain that 
way.
  When I need advice on the farm bill, I go to a couple of good farmers 
in my district, Kevin Papp, president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau, and 
Doug Peterson, president of Minnesota's Farmers Union. I don't need to 
go to the ideologues at the Cato Institute or Club for Growth to know 
what's good for rural America.
  I oppose this amendment and support the chairman's mark.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize 
the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for 1 minute.
  Mr. POMEROY. I was really surprised to hear my colleague, Mr. Flake, 
say, in talking about his bill, that farmers participating in the farm 
program are something like grown children living in the parents' 
basement. What a complete affront to the hardworking family farmers 
producing our Nation's food all across this country.
  It also shows a profound ignorance in just what's involved in family 
farming, tremendous capital exposed every year you put that crop and 
risks you can't control, price collapse, crop failure. And the only 
thing that's going to keep family farmers as our backbone for U.S. food 
production is a farm program that helps allay these risks.
  What do we want for our future, vast corporate-style ag production or 
family farmers producing the abundant food, the high quality, the low 
cost we've come to enjoy in our food supply in this country?
  I know what the people back home represent. They want family farms, 
and that's why they want this farm bill.
  Vote ``no'' on Kind; ``yes'' on the farm bill.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Madam Chairman, change in this place is very difficult. In fact, 
sometimes the toughest thing to accomplish is changing the status quo.
  But the fundamental fact is that when you've got two-thirds of the 
subsidy program in this farm bill going to just 30 congressional 
districts who are well represented on the committee, I think it's 
unrealistic to expect that that committee's going to produce a policy 
statement that embraces reform and new ideas. I should know. I used to 
serve on the committee. And I'm not being critical. That's just a fact. 
They have their districts to represent as we have districts to 
represent as well.
  My district takes a hit under this reform bill. But sometimes it 
takes a group of well-intentioned individuals to move the cause of 
reform forward, and that's what we're trying to do tonight.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I acknowledge and do not disparage the work 
of the committee. Let us consider, though, how much better we can do--
for consumers, for the Northeast, for New Jersey, for specialty crop 
growers, for small farmers, for nutrition programs, for our common 
environment.
  By shifting from obsolete programs the Kind amendment provides an 
additional $1.2 billion above the committee bill for fruit and 
vegetable growers--tripling the Farmer Market Promotion Program, making 
$500 million mandatory for Specialty Crop Research, making $150 million 
mandatory for Community Food Projects, and providing hundreds of 
millions of dollars for community supported agriculture, and the School 
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.
  I want to emphasize that the Kind amendment would provide $3 billion 
more than the committee bill to conservation programs.
  Support for the Kind amendment is broad and diverse including 
environmental and conservation groups, nutrition groups and groups that 
serve low-income Americans, specialty crop and organic farmers, and 
taxpayer groups. This is a sensible amendment. Indeed, the proposal by 
Mr. Kind, the gentleman from Wisconsin, is a remarkable, admirable 
legislative reform. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the Kind-Flake amendment, and in support of H.R. 2419, the Farm, 
Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007.
  Madam Chairman, the Kind-Flake amendment is nothing more than a 
veiled attempt at pulling the rug out from underneath of this nation's 
hardworking family farmers and those in the rural South who till the 
land of our nation to provide us with a safe, healthy, and robust food 
supply--often with little or no profit for themselves.
  Increasingly, we are relying on our farmers on many fronts--namely, 
to clothe, feed and, now, fuel our nation. The Kind-Flake amendment 
would divert us from reaching that goal by discouraging domestic crop 
production, dismantling our hope for energy innovation and 
independence, and increasing the trade deficit with countries that 
threaten our economic competitiveness.
  Indeed, the Kind-Flake proposal would take away the farm safety net 
and put U.S. farmers and ranchers in unfair competition against heavily 
subsidized foreign producers, many of whom are protected by much higher 
import tariffs than those imposed by the United States.
  In recent months, we have heard horrific accounts of how agricultural 
products are grown and how food is manufactured abroad, especially in 
China, whose rapidly growing, already behemoth-sized economy now 
imports $2.26 billion worth of food into this country each year. Do we 
really want to reduce the incentive for our domestic producers to grow 
their own, and rely more from these foreign countries with proven 
histories of lax food safety standards and tendencies to include 
poisonous additives into their products? I surely hope not.
  Furthermore, in lowering the AGI limitation to $250,000, the Kind-
Flake proposal is not drawn narrowly, as its supporters claim, but 
instead casts a wide net--it would eliminate over 38,000 current 
recipients from being covered by a farm safety net.
  The Kind-Flake proposal also misrepresents itself by touting its 
revenue-based counter cyclical payments as revolutionary, and as a 
superior alternative to the traditional counter-cyclical program. This 
completely ignores the fact that the Agricultural Committee's markup 
includes a revenue based counter-cyclical payment option!
  In the Agricultural Committee's proposal the producer gets to choose 
whether or not the current payment system or a revenue-based system is 
right for their unique operation. This allows individual producers to 
decide on their own what is best for their operation.
  Kind-Flake also cuts direct payments and, quite foolishly, assumes 
that by cutting direct payments, landowners will lower the price of 
rented land. In reality, cutting Direct Payments would leave farmers 
who rent land in a terrible lurch. It is highly unlikely that 
landowners will feel sympathetic to a producer and compelled to lower 
land rental rates.
  Much of this debate is focused on cost--that agricultural subsidies 
are out of control, are disproportionate to the agricultural industry's 
value to United States GDP, but let's focus on the facts: U.S. farm 
policy today costs less than one half of one percent of the total 
federal budget and comprises just 13 percent of the total U.S. 
Department of Agriculture budget. I believe that proportionately small 
cost is well worth what is returned to the American people in terms of 
a safe, affordable and robust food supply, a base on which to become 
energy independent, 20 percent of this nation's jobs, and $3.5 trillion 
in economic activity.
  My colleagues offering this amendment today are misguided about rural 
interests, about rural America, and about the overall cost of a bill 
that is expected to keep U.S. farm policy costs low and be good for 
taxpayers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin will be 
postponed.


        Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, pursuant to House 
Resolution 574, I offer amendments en bloc, including germane 
modifications. The amendments are at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:


[[Page 20878]]

       Amendments en bloc consisting of amendments No. 4 by Mr. 
     Lucas, No. 8 by Mr. Hastings of Florida, No. 9 by Mr. Arcuri 
     of New York, No. 10 by Mr. Welch of Vermont, No. 14 by Ms. 
     Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, No. 17 by Mr. Latham, No. 22 
     by Mr. Wu, No. 23 by Mr. Clay, as modified; No. 24 by Mr. 
     Israel, No. 26 by Ms. Bordallo, No. 28 by Mr. Emanuel, No. 30 
     by Mr. Hodes and No. 31 by Mr. Shuler printed in part B of 
     House Report 110-261 offered by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota:


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Lucas

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title XI, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 11013. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the purchase of 
     a Non-insured Assistance Program policy shall not be a 
     requirement to receive any Federal livestock disaster 
     assistance.


           Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XI add the following new section:

     SEC. __. POLLINATOR PROTECTION.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Pollinator Protection Act of 2007''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) many of the crops that humans and livestock consume 
     rely on pollinators for healthy growth;
       (2) pollination by honey and native bees adds more than 
     $18,000,000,000 annually to the value of United States crops;
       (3) \1/3\ of the food supply of the United States depends 
     on bee pollination, which makes the management and protection 
     of pollinators an issue of paramount importance to the 
     security of the United States food supply system;
       (4) colony collapse disorder is the name that has been 
     given to the latest die-off of honey bee colonies, 
     exacerbating the continual decline of pollinators in North 
     America;
       (5) honey bee colonies in more than 23 states have been 
     affected by colony collapse disorder;
       (6) if the current rate of decline continues, the United 
     States will be forced to rely more heavily on imported foods, 
     which will destabilize the food security of the United States 
     through adverse affects on the availability, price, and 
     quality of the many fruits, vegetables, and other products 
     that depend on animal pollination; and
       (7) enhanced funding for research on honey bees, native 
     bees, parasites, pathogens, toxins, and other environmental 
     factors affecting bees and pollination of cultivated and wild 
     plants will result in methods of response to colony collapse 
     disorder and other factors causing the decline of pollinators 
     in North America.
       (c) Authorizations of Appropriations.--
       (1) Agricultural research service.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
     through the Agricultural Research Service--
       (A) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, 
     to be used for new personnel, facilities improvement, and 
     additional research at Department of Agriculture Bee Research 
     Laboratories;
       (B) $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009, to 
     be used for research on honey and native bee physiology, 
     insect pathology, insect chemical ecology, and honey and 
     native bee toxicology at other Department of Agriculture 
     facilities in New York, Florida, California, Utah, and Texas; 
     and
       (C) $1,750,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010, 
     to be used for an area-wide research program to identify 
     causes and solutions for colony collapse disorder in affected 
     States.
       (2) Cooperative state research, education, and extension 
     service.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Cooperative 
     State Research, Education, and Extension Service, $10,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to be used to fund 
     Department of Agriculture extension and research grants to 
     investigate--
       (A) honey bee biology, immunology, and ecology;
       (B) honey bee genomics;
       (C) honey bee bioinformatics;
       (D) native bee crop pollination and habitat conservation;
       (E) native bee taxonomy and ecology;
       (F) pollination biology;
       (G) sublethal effects of insecticides, herbicides, and 
     fungicides on honey bees, native pollinators, and other 
     beneficial insects;
       (H) the effects of genetically-modified crops, including 
     the interaction of genetically-modified crops with honey bees 
     and other native pollinators; and
       (I) honey, bumble, and other native bee parasites and 
     pathogens and effects on other native pollinators.
       (3) Animal and plant health inspection service.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, acting through the Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service, $2,250,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012 to conduct a nationwide honey bee pest and 
     pathogen surveillance program.
       (d) Annual Reports.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
     through the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative 
     State Research, Education, and Extension Service, shall 
     submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate a report on the status and 
     progress of bee research projects that are carried out by the 
     Secretary.
       (e) Giving Pollinator Habitat and Protection a Priority in 
     Conservation Programs.--Section 1244 of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3844) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Native and Managed Pollinators.--In carrying out any 
     conservation program administered by the Secretary, except 
     the farmland protection program, the Secretary shall 
     establish a priority and provide incentives for--
       ``(1) increasing habitat for native and managed 
     pollinators, especially native habitat; and
       ``(2) establishing cropping systems, integrated pest 
     management regimes, and other practices to protect native and 
     managed pollinators.''.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Arcuri

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 2410. ADJUSTMENT OF CLASS I MILK PRICE MOVER TO REFLECT 
                   ENERGY AND ANIMAL FEED COST INCREASES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture should use existing authority when determining 
     the Class I milk price mover to take into account the 
     increased cost of production, including energy and feed.


            Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Section 4303 is further amended by striking paragraph (2) 
     and inserting the following:
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking 
     ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)'';
       (B) in clause (iii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in clause (iv) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) encourage plans for implementation that include 
     locally grown foods, where geographically available, in 
     accordance with section 9(j).''.


     Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title VII, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 7234. EMPHASIS OF HUMAN NUTRITION INITIATIVE.

       Section 1424(b) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3174(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and,'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the comma and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) proposals that examine the efficacy of current 
     agriculture policies in promoting the health and welfare of 
     economically disadvantaged populations,''.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Latham

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 6008--
       (1) insert ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--'' 
     before ``Section''; and
       (2) add at the end the following:
       (b) Additional priority in awarding grants.--Section 
     306E(c) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1926e(c)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, and to an applicant that has substantial 
     expertise and experience in promoting the safe and productive 
     use of individually-owned household water well systems and 
     ground water. The ability of an applicant to provide matching 
     funds shall not be taken into account in determining any 
     priority in awarding grants under this section. The payment 
     by a grantee of audit fees, business insurance, salary, 
     wages, employee benefits, printing costs, postage costs, and 
     legal fees associated with providing the assistance described 
     in paragraph (1) shall be considered the provision of 
     matching funds by the grantee for purposes of this section'' 
     before the period.


                   Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Wu

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 603, line 18, insert after ``economies'' the 
     following: ``or universities with fields of study capable of 
     developing renewable energy technology or policy''.
       Page 604, line 7, insert after ``economy'' the following: 
     ``, or at a university with fields of study capable of 
     developing renewable energy technology or policy (including

[[Page 20879]]

     agriculture-related studies, chemistry, environmental 
     sciences, bioengineering, biochemistry, natural resources, 
     and public policy),''.


                  Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Clay

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In subtitle B of title X, insert after section 10103 the 
     following new section 10103A (and amend the tables of content 
     accordingly):

     SEC. 10103A ADDITIONAL SECTION 32 FUNDS TO PROVIDE GRANTS FOR 
                   THE PURCHASE AND OPERATION OF URBAN GARDENS 
                   GROWING ORGANIC FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FOR THE 
                   LOCAL POPULATION.

       (a) Grants.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make grants 
     to eligible entities to assist in purchasing and operating 
     organic gardens or greenhouses in urban areas for growing 
     fruits and vegetables. In making such grants, the Secretary 
     will ensure such fruits and vegetables are sold to local 
     grocery stores.
       (b) Limitations.--Grants provided to any eligible entity 
     under this section may not exceed $25,000 for any given year.
       (c) Eligible Entities.--
       (1) Individuals.--An individual shall be eligible to 
     receive a grant under subsection (a) if the individual is a 
     resident of the neighborhood in which the urban garden or 
     greenhouse is located, or will be located.
       (2) Cooperatives.--A cooperative shall be eligible to 
     receive a grant under subsection (a) if every individual 
     member or owner of the cooperative is a resident of the 
     neighborhood in which the urban garden or greenhouse is 
     located, or will be located.
       (d) Selection of Eligible Entities.--The Secretary shall 
     develop criteria for the selection of eligible entities to 
     receive grants under this section.
       (e) Funding.--The Secretary shall award such grants using, 
     of the funds made available under section 32 of the Act of 
     August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), $20,000,000 in fiscal year 
     2008 and each fiscal year thereafter.


                 Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Israel

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XI add the following new sections:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON USE OF LIVE ANIMALS FOR MARKETING 
                   MEDICAL DEVICES; FINES UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE 
                   ACT.

       (a) Prohibition on Use of Animals for Marketing of Medical 
     Devices.--The Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 17 the following new 
     section:


   ``PROHIBITION ON USE OF LIVE ANIMALS FOR MARKETING MEDICAL DEVICES

       ``Sec. 18.  (a) In General.--No person may use a live 
     animal to--
       ``(1) demonstrate a medical device or product to a sales 
     representative for the purpose of marketing such medical 
     device or product;
       ``(2) train a sales representative to use a medical device 
     or product;
       ``(3) demonstrate a medical device or product in a workshop 
     or training session for the purpose of marketing a medical 
     device or product; or
       ``(4) create a multimedia recording (including a video 
     recording) for the purpose of marketing a medical device or 
     product.
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     training of medical personnel for a purpose other than 
     marketing a medical device or product.
       ``(c) Device Defined.--In this section, the term `device' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 201(h) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)).''.
       (b) Fines for Violations of the Animal Welfare Act.--
     Section 19(b) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``not more than 
     $2,500 for each such violation'' and inserting ``not more 
     than $10,000 for each such violation''; and
       (2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``Each violation, each day during which a 
     violation continues, and, in the case of a violation with 
     respect to animals, each animal that is the subject of such a 
     violation shall be a separate offense.''.
       (c) Reports on Activities Under the Animal Welfare Act.--
     The Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) is further 
     amended by striking section 25 and inserting the following 
     new section:


                            ``ANNUAL REPORT

       ``Sec. 25.  Not later than March 1 of each year, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing--
       ``(1) an identification of all research facilities, 
     exhibitors, and other persons and establishments licensed by 
     the Secretary under section 3 and section 12;
       ``(2) an identification of all research facilities, 
     intermediate handlers, carriers, and exhibitors registered 
     under section 6;
       ``(3) the nature and place of all investigations and 
     inspections conducted by the Secretary under section 16, and 
     all reports received by the Secretary under section 13;
       ``(4) recommendations for legislation to improve the 
     administration of this Act or any provisions of this Act; and
       ``(5) recommendations and conclusions concerning the 
     aircraft environment as it relates to the carriage of live 
     animals in air transportation.''.

     SEC. __. PROTECTION OF PETS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Pet 
     Safety and Protection Act of 2007''.
       (b) Research Facilities.--Section 7 of the Animal Welfare 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2137) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 7. SOURCES OF DOGS AND CATS FOR RESEARCH FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Definition of Person.--In this section, the term 
     `person' means any individual, partnership, firm, joint stock 
     company, corporation, association, trust, estate, pound, 
     shelter, or other legal entity.
       ``(b) Use of Dogs and Cats.--No research facility or 
     Federal research facility may use a dog or cat for research 
     or educational purposes if the dog or cat was obtained from a 
     person other than a person described in subsection (d).
       ``(c) Selling, Donating, or Offering Dogs and Cats.--No 
     person, other than a person described in subsection (d), may 
     sell, donate, or offer a dog or cat to any research facility 
     or Federal research facility.
       ``(d) Permissible Sources.--A person from whom a research 
     facility or a Federal research facility may obtain a dog or 
     cat for research or educational purposes under subsection 
     (b), and a person who may sell, donate, or offer a dog or cat 
     to a research facility or a Federal research facility under 
     subsection (c), shall be--
       ``(1) a dealer licensed under section 3 that has bred and 
     raised the dog or cat;
       ``(2) a publicly owned and operated pound or shelter that--
       ``(A) is registered with the Secretary;
       ``(B) is in compliance with section 28(a)(1) and with the 
     requirements for dealers in subsections (b) and (c) of 
     section 28; and
       ``(C) obtained the dog or cat from its legal owner, other 
     than a pound or shelter;
       ``(3) a person that is donating the dog or cat and that--
       ``(A) bred and raised the dog or cat; or
       ``(B) owned the dog or cat for not less than 1 year 
     immediately preceding the donation;
       ``(4) a research facility licensed by the Secretary; and
       ``(5) a Federal research facility licensed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(e) Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person that violates this section 
     shall be fined $1,000 for each violation.
       ``(2) Additional penalty.--A penalty under this subsection 
     shall be in addition to any other applicable penalty.
       ``(f) No Required Sale or Donation.--Nothing in this 
     section requires a pound or shelter to sell, donate, or offer 
     a dog or cat to a research facility or Federal research 
     facility.''.
       (c) Federal Research Facilities.--Section 8 of the Animal 
     Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2138) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 8. No department'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 8. FEDERAL RESEARCH FACILITIES.

       ``Except as provided in section 7, no department'';
       (2) by striking ``research or experimentation or''; and
       (3) by striking ``such purposes'' and inserting ``that 
     purpose''.
       (d) Certification.--Section 28(b)(1) of the Animal Welfare 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2158(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``individual 
     or entity'' and inserting ``research facility or Federal 
     research facility''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections 
     (b), (c), and (d) take effect on the date that is 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Bordallo

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       After section 7233, insert the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 7234. GRANTS TO UPGRADE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCES 
                   FACILITIES AT INSULAR AREA LAND-GRANT 
                   INSTITUTIONS.

       The National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 1447A the following:

     ``SEC. 1447B. GRANTS TO UPGRADE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCES 
                   FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT AT INSULAR AREA LAND-
                   GRANT INSTITUTIONS.

       ``(a) Purpose.--It is declared to be the intent of Congress 
     to assist the land grant institutions in the insular areas in 
     efforts to acquire, alter, or repair facilities or relevant 
     equipment necessary for conducting agricultural research.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of carrying 
     out the provisions of this section $8,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
       ``(c) Method of Awarding Grants.--Grants awarded pursuant 
     to this section shall be made in such amounts and under such 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary shall determine 
     necessary for carrying out the purposes of this section.
       ``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate such rules 
     and regulations as the Secretary may consider necessary to 
     carry out the provisions of this section.''.


                Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Emanuel

  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page 20880]]

       At the end of subtitle E of title I, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 1512. PREVENTION OF DECEASED PERSONS RECEIVING PAYMENTS 
                   UNDER FARM COMMODITY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Identification of Erroneous Payments Made to Deceased 
     Persons.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
       (1) undertake a study to identify any estate of a deceased 
     person that continued to receive payments under this title 
     for more than two crop years after the death of the person; 
     and
       (2) submit a report containing the results of the study to 
     Congress.
       (b) Notification.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     that specify deadlines by which a legal entity must notify 
     the Secretary of any change in ownership of such entity, 
     including the death of a person with a direct or indirect 
     ownership interest in the entity, that may affect the 
     entity's eligibility to receive payments or other benefits 
     under this title. The Secretary may deny the issuance of such 
     payments or benefits to an entity that fails to comply with 
     such regulations.
       (c) Recoupment.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     estate of a deceased person failed to timely notify the Farm 
     Service Agency of the death, the Secretary shall recoup the 
     erroneous payments made on behalf of the deceased person. The 
     Secretary shall withhold payments that would otherwise be 
     made under this title to farming operations in which the 
     deceased person was actively engaged in farming before death 
     until the funds have been recouped.
       (d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall, twice a year, 
     reconcile individual tax identification numbers with the 
     Internal Revenue Service for recipients of payments under 
     this title to determine recipients' living status.


                 Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Hodes

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title IX add the following new section:

     SEC. __. COMMUNITY WOOD ENERGY PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.-- Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States' over-reliance on fossil fuel energy 
     has placed undue strain on the nation by compromising our 
     economy and national security;
       (2) the United States' over-reliance on fossil fuel energy 
     has also created new strains on our natural systems, 
     including carbon emissions that contribute to climate change;
       (3) transportation of energy, such as heating oil, adds to 
     carbon emissions associated with meeting our community energy 
     needs and therefore further feeds climate change;
       (4) it is in the national interest to conserve energy and 
     support adoption of new local, sustainable, efficient, and 
     carbon neutral energy sources, such as wood energy, for 
     community energy needs;
       (5) communities can save as much as 50 percent over natural 
     gas, 80 percent over propane, 80 percent over electric heat, 
     and 50 percent over oil heat by switching to wood energy for 
     heating schools and other public buildings;
       (6) in fast growing communities of all sizes across the 
     United States, municipal and country-owned forest land is 
     playing an essential role in meeting many public needs and 
     could also be used to help support sustainable forestry and 
     local wood energy applications; and
       (7) the rapidly expanding base of private forest land 
     owners nationwide includes many individuals with no 
     experience in forest stewardship who could be given technical 
     assistance to provide locally sourced wood supply through 
     sustainable forest management for local wood energy 
     applications.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     grants for community wood energy systems that are intended 
     to--
       (1) meet community energy needs with reduced carbon 
     intensity versus fossil fuel systems;
       (2) promote energy conservation and development of new 
     renewable energy sources;
       (3) aid local budgets by reducing municipal and county 
     energy costs;
       (4) increase utilization of low value wood supplies and 
     waste, thereby strengthening the forest products economy for 
     the benefit of forest workers and private forest land owners; 
     and
       (5) increase awareness of energy conservation and 
     consumption and the multiple-use values of forests among 
     community members, especially young people.
       (c) Grant Program.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
     through the Forest Service, shall establish a program to be 
     known as the Community Wood Energy Program to provide grants 
     to State and local governments to acquire community wood 
     energy systems for public buildings and to implement a 
     community wood energy plan.
       (d) Use in Public Buildings.--A State or local government 
     receiving a grant under subsection (c) shall use a community 
     wood energy system acquired in whole or in part with the use 
     of grant funds for primary use in a public facility owned by 
     such State or local government.
       (e) Limitation.--A community wood energy system acquired 
     with grant funds provided under subsection (c) shall not 
     exceed an output of--
       (1) 50,000,000 BTU per hour for heating; and
       (2) 2 megawatts for electric power production.
       (f) Community Wood Energy Plan.--Within 18 months of 
     receiving assistance under this section, communities shall 
     utilize the technical assistance of the State forester to 
     create a community wood energy plan identifying how local 
     forests can be accessed in a sustainable manner to help meet 
     the wood supply needs of systems purchased under this 
     section.
       (g) Matching Funds.--A State or local government receiving 
     a grant under subsection (c) shall contribute an amount of 
     non-Federal funds towards the acquisition of community wood 
     energy systems that is at least equal to the amount of grant 
     funds received by such State or local government.
       (h) Community Wood Energy System Defined.--The term 
     ``community wood energy system'' includes single facility 
     central heating, district heating, combined heat and energy 
     systems, and other related biomass energy systems that 
     service schools, town halls, libraries, and other public 
     buildings.
       (i) Appropriation.-- There are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
     section.


                 Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Shuler

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 404 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, as 
     added by section 8102, insert after subsection (c) the 
     following new subsection (and redesignate subsequent 
     subsections):
       ``(d) Insect and Disease Threats.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (c)(1), non-industrial private forest lands are 
     eligible under this section if the Secretary determines that 
     the lands are under an imminent threat of loss or damage by 
     insect or disease and immediate action would help to avoid 
     the loss or damage.


          Modification to Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Clay

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to part B amendment No. 23 printed in House 
     Report 110-261 offered by Mr. Clay:

  The amendment is modified to read as follows:

       In subtitle B of title X, insert after section 10103 the 
     following new section 10103A (and amend the tables of content 
     accordingly):

     SEC. 10103A. ADDITIONAL SECTION 32 FUNDS TO PROVIDE GRANTS 
                   FOR THE PURCHASE AND OPERATION OF URBAN GARDENS 
                   GROWING ORGANIC FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FOR THE 
                   LOCAL POPULATION.

       (a) Grants.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make grants 
     to eligible entities to assist in purchasing and operating 
     organic gardens or greenhouses in urban areas for growing 
     fruits and vegetables. In making such grants, the Secretary 
     will ensure such fruits and vegetables are sold to local 
     grocery stores.
       (b) Limitations.--Grants provided to any eligible entity 
     under this section may not exceed $25,000 for any given year.
       (c) Eligible Entities.--
       (1) Individuals.--An individual shall be eligible to 
     receive a grant under subsection (a) if the individual is a 
     resident of the neighborhood in which the urban garden or 
     greenhouse is located, or will be located.
       (2) Cooperatives.--A cooperative shall be eligible to 
     receive a grant under subsection (a) if every individual 
     member or owner of the cooperative is a resident of the 
     neighborhood in which the urban garden or greenhouse is 
     located, or will be located.
       (d) Selection of Eligible Entities.--The Secretary shall 
     develop criteria for the selection of eligible entities to 
     receive grants under this section.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008 and for each fiscal year thereafter.

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the reading of the modification be dispensed 
with.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, this amendment includes a 
number of amendments that have been worked out with the minority, and 
they are amendments that we were not able to get into the manager's 
amendment, so I would yield to the ranking member for his take on these 
amendments.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. If the gentleman would repeat his request.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I was explaining that these en bloc 
amendments have been agreed to between

[[Page 20881]]

yourself and myself and the members of the committee and we recommend 
their adoption.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. That is correct.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. We have a colloquy that I would like to do 
during this time if it's okay with the ranking member.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. We will reserve the balance of the time that has been 
yielded to us and we certainly have no objection to you yielding to 
others.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia seek to claim the time 
in opposition?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I'm not seeking time in opposition. I support the 
amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentlelady from California.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, I rise this evening to enter into a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), our distinguished 
chair of the Agriculture Committee.
  And first, let me just thank the gentleman for his hard work on the 
farm bill reauthorization and his dedication to moving our Nation 
forward in the area of agriculture, nutrition, conservation and energy.
  I want to applaud his efforts to accommodate the various caucuses and 
coalitions across the country and in Congress, including the 
Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the 
California delegation and the Hunger Caucus.
  Madam Chairman, I come to the floor today to raise the important 
issue of concern to me and members of the Congressional Black Caucus 
regarding the lifetime ban of eligibility of food stamps for formerly 
incarcerated persons who were convicted of drug offenses.
  It makes no sense to single out this group. Most recent figures show 
that nearly 213,000 State inmates were released in 2005 after serving a 
sentence for a drug crime, and most recent Federal data shows that 
24,400 Federal inmates were released in 2002. After they serve their 
time, they reenter society looking to improve themselves and their 
lives. The task of finding a job for formerly incarcerated individuals 
is often difficult and a daunting task. This effort is even more 
difficult if they want to go back to school, be it for their GED or 
college degree. In these instances, they are unable to access many of 
the resources available to others, including food stamps.
  The inequity to this group couldn't be clearer. Drug offenses account 
for more than 50 percent of the crimes committed by Federal prisoners 
and more than 20 percent of State prisoners, most of whom are 
nonviolent offenders. With factors such as poverty and lack of access 
to educational resources, coupled with the lack of sufficient legal 
resources, this issue disproportionately affects the African American 
community.
  In 1996, the Congress, in an overzealous attempt to appear tough on 
crime, included in the Welfare Reform bill a provision that excluded 
formerly incarcerated persons from receiving food stamp benefits for 
life. This is a lifetime ban if they have ever been convicted of a drug 
crime.
  So Madam Chair, that is why I offered an amendment to the rule to 
H.R. 2419 to strike this ban. Although the amendment was not made in 
order, I strongly believe that this is an unfair and unjust policy 
which must be addressed.
  In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he said ``An injustice 
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''
  Madam Chairman, this policy has created a slippery slope, one that 
can be used to cherry-pick certain segments of the population who can 
eat, basically, while others must scrape and scramble for the basics.
  Once someone has served their debt to society, they should be able to 
have access to the minimum amount of food vital to their survival while 
they get their lives together.
  So I hope that I can work together with the distinguished Chair of 
the Ag Committee to ensure that this grave inequity is corrected.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I want to assure the gentlewoman from 
California I agree with her on the point and appreciate her intention 
in raising this issue. And I want to assure the gentlewoman that, as 
the bill moves forward, we will be mindful of this issue and work with 
her and her staff to accommodate this provision.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, let me take this opportunity to thank the 
gentleman for his attention to this issue, and I look forward to 
working with him to ensure that it is addressed. And I want to 
congratulate him on putting together the coalition for this bill.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and 
also want to thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for his 
response displaying sensitivity and recognition of a tremendous 
injustice, as well as a great need that exists in our society.
  Many of those individuals who have been convicted of drug offenses 
should have been in hospitals and health clinics, should have been 
receiving treatment, as opposed to incarceration and conviction.
  So, Madam Chairman, I too commend you for your sensitivity, 
willingness to work on this issue, and commend the gentlewoman from 
California for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I recognize the gentlelady 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage the fine gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) in a colloquy on unfair practices in the 
poultry and meat packing industries, and want to commend him for this 
incredibly visionary piece of legislation. It is a real credit to him, 
to his dogged work and expertise over so many years in this Congress as 
well as in the private sector.
  The current contracted system of meat and poultry production often 
maneuvers farmers who do the actual work of raising and feeding 
billions of animals into subservient positions in today's marketplace 
and legal system. Poultry has become one of the most vertically 
integrated industries in our country, with four firms controlling 
nearly 60 percent of the broilers raised and sold.
  Poultry, despite the worrisome rise of camphylobacter and salmonella 
through safety recalls, remains outside the normal oversight by USDA, 
even though GIPSA has oversight over beef and pork.

                              {time}  2200

  The Department of Agriculture has no real power to stop unfair 
practices in this industry. It surely has no mediation authority. 
Poultry contracts often are presented to farmers as take-it-or-leave-it 
contracts. In many cases farmers do not even see the actual contract 
until after they have gone to the bank. Farmers are not encouraged to 
negotiate contract terms that protect their interests, such as hedging 
against animal deaths and environmental cleanup costs, assuring 
accurate weights and measures and fair feed and input pricing, or 
gaining a fair share of the value of the nitrogen-rich manure produced 
by the animals themselves.
  As the gentleman from Minnesota moves forward on the farm bill 
conference, I would urge him to give the USDA the full authority to 
protect against unfair practices in the poultry industry and to protect 
farmers' legal rights.
  Please give farmers legal standing in court. Provide them with 
transparency in pricing, as well as technical assistance with fair 
contracts. Assure weights and measures. Help them hedge against animal 
deaths and environmental cleanups. Provide for legal and safe working 
conditions for chicken catchers who are their primary workforce. Bring 
honor to this industry with contracting fairness to farmers and their 
workers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
for an additional 2 minutes on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman's request provide for each side to 
have an additional 2 minutes?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?

[[Page 20882]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I want to thank Ms. Kaptur 
for bringing up this issue.
  As chairman of the Agriculture Committee and representative of the 
largest turkey-producing industry in the United States, I share your 
concern and interest in making sure that we are not putting poultry 
farmers at a disadvantage. We have worked hard on the committee to have 
an open process, and earlier this year the Subcommittee on Livestock 
held a hearing on issues similar to this one.
  Now as we continue to move forward in the farm bill process, we will 
keep this issue in mind and look forward to working with the 
gentlewoman to address her concerns in the conference committee.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois, who has one of the amendments included in the en bloc 
amendment.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Minnesota for yielding.
  The other day there was a story in the newspaper about dead farmers 
who were still collecting benefits up to about $1 billion. This 
amendment would cut down on that type of fraud and bring real 
accountability to the system.
  I am from Chicago. In Chicago we kind of appreciate the ability of 
dead people to do spectacular things, but this would even bring an 
alderman to blush. A billion dollars to dead farmers still getting 
government benefits. I think a Chicago alderman would be jealous of 
this type of benefit.
  So after that report, a number of us put in an amendment to bring the 
type of accountability to the Department of Agriculture for the type of 
benefits that are applied and should only be applied to farmers who are 
farming, obviously, their farm and working, but not to dead farmers and 
to people who should not be receiving what they estimate is close to $1 
billion.
  So I want to thank the chairman for allowing me to offer this to 
track down the fraudulent payments that have gone on in the Department 
of Agriculture and eliminate the type of waste, fraud, and abuse that 
exist.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Madam Chairman, I rise today to support this 
amendment offered by my colleague and friend from Oklahoma. This 
amendment is critical to deliver on the promise that we made to 
American livestock producers this past May. After more than a year of 
effort--and despite several veto threats from the President--we were 
successful in passing much-needed disaster assistance through this 
Chamber and enacted into law.
  Then, several months after the bill's passage, the Secretary of 
Agriculture decided that a certain phrase in the bill effectively 
denies aid to all livestock producers that did not participate in the 
Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program or the crop insurance 
pilot program for rangeland. I assure my colleagues that this was not 
the intention of Congress and, regardless of the accuracy of USDA's 
legal interpretation, we need to fix it.
  I have worked with Agriculture Committee leadership to find a 
solution to this problem and I am pleased this amendment was made in 
order. I also have shared this problem with the leadership of the 
Appropriations Committee to ensure that this year's Agriculture 
Appropriations bill contains language to address this as well, and I am 
pleased to report that it does. Using this dual-track approach, I am 
confident that we can solve this problem in time to prevent any delays 
in delivering this much-needed assistance to American producers.
  This amendment will enable us to deliver on the promise we have made 
to deserving and distressed ranchers across this country, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank you for 
consideration of my amendment to H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and 
Bioenergy Act of 2007.
  My amendment focuses on Title VII, which is the Research Title of the 
legislation.
  Specifically, the amendment adds a section to the end of ``Subtitle 
B,'' which contains provisions pertaining to the National Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977.
  The 1977 Act contains Section 1424, authorizing the ``Human Nutrition 
Intervention and Health Promotion Research Program.''
  This is the nutrition research arm of the Department of Agriculture. 
The program authorizes the Agriculture Secretary to award research 
grants for human nutrition intervention and health promotion.
  The 1977 Act describes the ``Emphasis of the Initiative.'' It goes on 
to say that research projects should emphasize:
  Coordinated, longitudinal research assessments of nutritional status; 
and
  ``The implementation of unified, innovative intervention strategies 
to identify and solve problems of nutritional inadequacy and contribute 
to the maintenance of health, well-being, performance, and productivity 
of individuals, thereby reducing the need of the individuals to use the 
health care system and social programs of the United States.''
  Madam Chairman, my amendment would add one additional point regarding 
the emphasis of the nutrition research initiative.
  Emphasis should also be placed on research proposals that examine the 
efficacy of current agriculture policies in promoting the health and 
welfare of economically disadvantaged populations.
  The working poor suffer disproportionately from obesity and its 
related disorders: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, joint problems, 
and others.
  Nutrition research should include matters relating to public health. 
My amendment specifies that the scope of human nutrition research 
include grant proposals that study the effectiveness of current 
agriculture policies in promoting the health of individuals living in 
poverty.
  These groups stand to benefit the most from nutrition research.
  Taxpayer dollars should be invested wisely, Madam Chairman. An 
investment in analyzing how well the Federal Government's agriculture 
policies enable Americans to live healthy lives and make good nutrition 
choices is money well spent.
  This amendment directs a sharper focus on nutrition research to help 
the economically disadvantaged.
  I thank the Chairman for his acceptance of my amendment and urge my 
colleagues to support it also.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-261.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       Strike sections 5031, 5032, 5033, 5035, and 5036.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman I yield myself 2 minutes.
  This bill as presented significantly expands the ability of the Farm 
Credit System to operate in nonfarm contexts in two ways; first of all, 
in terms of the membership that would be required to be farm credit 
providers, and, secondly, in terms of the transactions in which they 
engage. And I think that would be an error. And I believe that it is a 
mistake to allow an expansion into the banking system by entities that 
aren't banks. We have a particular exemption in the Farm Credit System 
for agricultural lending, and it was meant to be lending by and to 
agricultural commodities. This bill goes beyond it.
  Now, I want to say, and I have had conversations with the chairman of 
the Agriculture Committee, Members have said that especially with the 
interest in alternative energy, there have been problems in getting 
loans from banks. I must say that, and I talked to my colleague the 
ranking Republican, no one

[[Page 20883]]

has brought this to our attention. Had this been brought to our 
attention on the Financial Services Committee, we would have responded. 
And I want to say now, and I talked to the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, I am prepared to have, I think we should have in the fall, 
joint hearings of our two committees, the Committee on Agriculture and 
the Committee on Financial Services, to listen to people's concerns 
here. And if it is documented that there have been problems with the 
availability of loans for the purpose of alternative energy for 
agriculture, then, yes, I would agree that something is appropriate. My 
problem is that this bill as it now stands goes beyond that in several 
ways. It weakens the restrictions in terms of stock ownership as to who 
gets involved.
  Now, another issue that has been raised was allowing an increase in 
the town size, from 2,500 to 6,000. My reaction to that was favorable, 
but we were never able, as we were willing, to negotiate out some 
limitations and some expansions.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts' amendment.
  What we tried to do in the subcommittee, Mr. Lucas and I, was try to 
see that access to credit was readily available in rural America, 
particularly in the agriculture sector. We tried to find a way to form 
a compromise between a Farm Credit System and the banking industry. We 
held hearings and brought them together, and we found out we had 
managed to anger both sides; so maybe we had a pretty good compromise.
  The Farm Credit System in the HORIZONS project wanted to expand rural 
housing from 2,500 to 50,000. They wanted to expand on agriculture 
lending to agriculture-related businesses, a great diversion from where 
they are limited right now. And we thought that was too far, but we 
wanted to make sure there was access to credit in rural America, and we 
think we came up with a pretty good compromise.
  In increasing the rural housing from 2,500 to 6,000, we are, all of 
us, not only in this committee, but this Congress, anxious to try to 
find ways to use renewable energy sources, and we believe that in this 
industry there is going to be a lack of credit. As the chairman of the 
full committee has said during this debate, he has noticed that in his 
home State of Minnesota. So we thought extending the credit to energy-
related agriculture lending through the Farm Credit System was 
reasonable and responsible and something that was a good compromise.
  So, Madam Chairman, we feel in the committee that we have come up 
with a pretty good compromise, something that is going to reflect the 
conditions in rural America, and something that we believe that is in 
the best interest of rural America and the agriculture community.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just to reiterate the point made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
the Farm Credit System is a very important thing for rural America. It 
provides credit to America's farmers and ranchers and is a necessary 
and serious challenge to get that credit sometimes. There have been 
times when business has been bad in rural America, and the Farm Credit 
System has been there to stand up in good times and bad.
  I appreciate the concerns raised by my friends in the banking 
community. We want to make sure that there is fair treatment, given 
that these are two different types of systems that operate, and we have 
listened to them very carefully. We have held hearings. And as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania says, we worked very hard to come up with 
something we thought was fair.
  We did basically three things: One related to housing, one related to 
lending in the energy area, and one dealing with cooperatives. All of 
these things are simply looking to modernize the Farm Credit System to 
deal with the fact that rural America and farming have changed 
substantially from the last time there was any major address of this 
issue back in the 1970s.
  The rural population limit for home mortgages, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania pointed out, is 2,500 population. It has not been updated 
since 1971, and since then, over 700 communities have grown to the 
point where they are not considered rural under the farm credit 
definition, where you could get a farm credit loan in the past and now, 
because of the increased population, you can't. So people who have been 
doing business with farm credit sometimes for generations are no longer 
able to do that. The law does not change the limitation on moderately 
priced homes, owner-occupied, single-family homes.
  We are simply trying to extend this to recognize that the population 
of the country is growing, and, therefore, there ought to be 
recognition of that. They asked for a very substantial increase, and we 
thought that was well beyond what was contemplated by being able to 
lend in rural areas.
  Secondly, with regard to energy, there is no doubt that when times 
are good, there are financial resources available, credit from a wide 
array of sources. But as the ethanol boom started in this country, 
there was not money available from some sources; so farm credit stepped 
up to the plate.
  In order for them to step up to the plate when the risk is higher, 
they need to be able to have a viable system throughout, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama, the senior Republican on the Financial Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, the Farm Credit System does fulfill a 
valuable service to the farmers of America, and we have no argument 
with that. But we all need to recognize that the Farm Credit System is 
a government-sponsored entity. It has the benefits and privileges of a 
government-sponsored entity, and the taxpayers underwrite its 
operation.
  Now, traditionally they have made what we call farm loans, 
agricultural loans. There is much concern in the private lending 
market, independent bankers, small-town bankers, credit unions and 
thrifts that this role has been expanding. In fact, over half the loans 
made by the Farm Credit System are to farmers or corporations valued at 
over $1 million.

                              {time}  2215

  Where they were making agricultural loans, agricultural mortgages, 
now they're lending money to Cargill, ADM, Jack-in-the-Box, and retail 
businesses.
  This amendment is simply our way of saying that when you begin to 
compete with small-town bankers, with thrifts, with credit unions, it 
is a contact sport. And we need to take a step back and look at it. But 
at this time, we don't believe that any expansion, in fact, I'd like to 
submit for the Record a letter by Michael Reyna, who is the immediate 
past chairman and CEO of the Farm Credit Administration, in which he 
says that the pressure was always there to make off-farm loans, and he 
submits this letter in support of our amendment.

Statement on the Frank/Bachus Amendement (#10) Submitted By Former Farm 
  Credit Administration (FCA) Chairman and CEO Michael M. Reyna (2000-
                                 2004)

       Man's best friend, protector, and hunting partner, the dog, 
     holds a special place in the heart of rural America. The Farm 
     Credit System (System) plays a very special role in rural 
     America, too. Congress established the System, the Nation's 
     oldest government sponsored enterprise (GSE), to achieve a

[[Page 20884]]

     very special public policy goal: a dependable source of 
     credit for agriculture and rural America.
       (21) Typically, GSEs are established, structured, and 
     intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
     economic marketplace; a mechanism to free up capital for new 
     loans. And, as their name implies, GSEs are chartered by the 
     government and are given tax breaks and authority to issue 
     government backed debt obligations, among other special 
     advantages, to achieve their public policy goal.
       Unlike other GSEs, the System--with its special government 
     breaks and authorities--directly competes as a retail lender 
     against its private sector counterparts, namely banks and 
     other financial institutions. Competition is a contact sport, 
     but fair is fair and it's not hard to understand why many 
     private sector lenders bristle when it comes to directly 
     competing against a public sector lender with special tax 
     breaks and a cheaper source of funds.
       Striking a delicate balance, Congress wrote, and has 
     amended, the Farm Credit Act with an eye towards focusing the 
     public benefits of this GSE by limiting the types of loans 
     that the System can make as well as where and to whom these 
     loans can be made. Unsatisfied with the wisdom of Congress, 
     the System has applied relentless pressure in recent years on 
     its regulator, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), to grant 
     ever broader lending authority and even to issue ``no action 
     letters'' essentially giving System lenders a ``free pass'' 
     to disobey the law. As the immediate past Chairman of the FCA 
     (2000 to 2004), I have directly experienced the System's 
     pressure to get the FCA to give the System what it wants.
       ``Private sector lenders are well aware of these efforts, 
     and the System's lending abuses are well-documented. And, 
     notwithstanding the public relations campaign relative to its 
     young, beginning, and small farmer lending efforts, the bulk 
     of the System's public benefit goes to commercial 
     agriculture--those farmers with retail sales in excess of one 
     million dollars annually. This fact alone suggests a thorough 
     review of whether the System is achieving its public policy 
     purpose is in order, particularly given that agricultural 
     concentration has increased as the number of commercially 
     viable farms in America continues to decline.
       Rather than submitting a ``secret'' wish list of regulatory 
     changes it wants the FCA to make behind closed doors through 
     ``notational votes,'' the System is now seemingly seeking to 
     broaden its lending authority directly from Congress, through 
     the Farm Bill (H.R. 2419). Seemingly, because when it comes 
     to legislation, the devil is in the details. A review of the 
     proposed language raises legitimate concerns about exactly 
     what authorities are being broadened and by how much. Without 
     greater specificity, the ambiguity will leave much to the 
     System's regulator to sort out. Would the three-member FCA 
     Board be a lapdog or a watchdog on these issues? Given its 
     close ties to the System, is there really any doubt how the 
     decisions would turn out?
       The System's proposed changes to the Farm Credit Act are an 
     outgrowth of its HORIZONS Project, a multi-year effort 
     designed to justify an expansion of the System's off-farm 
     lending powers. And, therein lies its primary flaw--the 
     System's efforts are more about the System's growth and 
     profitability rather than the credit needs of agriculture and 
     rural America. When it comes to commercial agriculture, 
     competition among lenders is healthy and credit is available 
     and affordable. Consequently, there is no public policy 
     rationale to broaden the System's lending authority in this 
     area, let alone expand its lending authority beyond 
     agriculture either. In other words, ``That dog don't hunt.''
       Private-sector lenders now provide ample home-mortgage 
     credit in towns with population between 2,500 and 6,000, 
     often by selling those mortgages to the System's fellow GSEs, 
     Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Not only is there not a mortgage 
     credit shortage in this population range, but authorizing the 
     System to lend in communities larger than 2,500 will distract 
     it from financing moderately-priced rural housing where it is 
     most needed.
       Rather than responding to the System's relentless desire to 
     finance corporate agriculture, Congress should undertake a 
     comprehensive examination of the System's future role in 
     financing agriculture and rural America. Only after such a 
     detailed review should the Congress consider any expansion of 
     the System's off-farm lending authority. Therefore, the House 
     of Representatives should drop the HORIZONS provisions now in 
     the Farm Bill by voting for the Frank/Bachus amendment #10.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how 
much time is remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania each have 1 minute.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself my 
remaining minute.
  I know my friends have said they sought a compromise. The only 
problem is they had a unique motion here, it was the unilateral 
compromise, they compromised with themselves. And they did a pretty 
good job of compromising with themselves, but I think we need to 
compromise with each other.
  There are two committees here that have concerns: one about the 
integrity of the banking system and not having non-banks get into the 
banking system. This House is aware of that because we dealt with a 
similar issue with regard to industrial loan corporations.
  What we are saying here, the gentleman from Alabama and I, is we were 
not previously told about a problem of a lack of availability of credit 
from the banking system for alternative energy. If that exists, it 
needs to be remedied. And as I've said, I've spoken to the chairman of 
the full committee; I've spoken to my ranking member on our committee. 
We're prepared to have joint hearings and be available for people to 
document to us what the nature of the problem is, and then respond, 
whether it's an increase in size, or what. But I do think the history 
shows that we should be very careful about who gets into the banking 
industry and who doesn't. The banking system ought to be preserved very 
carefully.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for his comments. And I 
just want to assure him that we can count votes as well.
  Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to our friend from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I serve on both Agriculture and 
Financial Services, so I can look at this with a very jaundiced eye. 
And I think what we have to do is make a decision in this move based 
upon what the lay of the land is. First, we're talking about renewable 
energy and ethanol. Where is that going to take place? It's going to 
take place in the rural communities where the products, where the crops 
are that will make renewable energy.
  This proposal is tied very tight, and I think that farm credit 
deserves to have an opportunity to compete in this new burgeoning 
industry. The businesses that are made eligible are ones that process 
or handle farm products that are directly used in renewable energy. 
This is very tight. I do not believe that the farm credit needs to be 
denied this opportunity. I do not think it blurs jurisdictional lines. 
We should not close the door on an industry, an opportunity for farm 
credit to provide a service that is not directly competitive with our 
bankers.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Frank-Bachus amendment to H.R. 2419. This vast expansion of the Farm 
Credit System is unnecessary and unwise. American businesses today 
enjoy the best financial services marketplace in the world. There are 
opportunities for credit at every turn. The current Farm Credit System 
was set up in a different era to offer all the products and services of 
a financial institution to farmers and farm-related small businesses.
  A government sponsored enterprise for over 90 years, the Farm Credit 
System remains the only GSE with direct lending authority. In towns of 
2,500 people or less, this system is able to compete directly with 
other lenders, but with major advantages given to them by their 
government-sponsored status. The historical justification for this 
special GSE status has been to focus the system on farmers and 
companies that provide farm related services. The expansion which the 
Farm Bill currently seeks would dramatically alter the mission of the 
Farm Credit System and detract from its mission of helping farmers. 
There is no need for the expansion of this government entity and there 
is no vacuum to be filled.
  Regardless of whether or not you disagree with the policy of the 
expansion of the Farm Credit System, you can disagree with the process 
used here to legislate. In a July letter to the Speaker, the Chairman 
and Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee asked for a 
sequential referral, yet were denied. While the Committee on 
Agriculture clearly has jurisdiction over the Farm Credit System, the 
Committee on Financial Services has jurisdiction over all extensions of 
credit and a referral was justified.
  In a recent letter written by the former regulator of the Farm Credit 
System, Michael Reyna, we see an objective analysis of this expansion. 
As Mr. Reyna mentions, the Farm Credit System is seeking an expansion 
of their

[[Page 20885]]

powers to move beyond their historical focus. ``Therein lies its 
primary flaw--the System's efforts are more about the System's growth 
and profitability rather than the credit needs of agriculture and rural 
America. When it comes to commercial agriculture, competition among 
lenders is healthy and credit is available and affordable.''
  Let's not fix what isn't broken. Let's keep our government-sponsored 
lending operations tied to their original purpose and let's support the 
Frank-Bachus amendment.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Chairman, I would like to express my support for 
the amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007, H.R. 2419, 
offered by my friend Mr. Frank from Massachusetts. The amendment aims 
to remove the expansions in the underlying legislation that would 
expand the Farm Credit System. The Farm Credit System is a $163 billion 
direct lending Government sponsored enterprise that has its own 
regulatory system and preferential borrowing authority.
  The proposed expansions of the Farm Credit System in the original 
measure would have diluted farmer ownership of farm cooperatives and 
would have undermined farm cooperative principles. Fortunately, the 
Frank amendment passed last night by a voice vote, as these extensions 
of the Farm Credit System clearly did not have the support of the 
majority of my House colleagues. Because the amendment was approved, 
the Farm Credit System is better able to serve its intended 
constituency by providing credit directly to family farmers, ranchers, 
and farmer-owned cooperatives.
  The protections afforded by the Frank amendment to the farming sector 
are also reflected in protecting our financial institutions by 
preventing an unwarranted expansion into mainstream banking activities. 
Our Nation's financial institutions have continued to evolve and meet 
the needs of consumers over the years. These innovations should 
continue to be fostered while maintaining the security and independence 
of our financial institutions.
  I applaud the passage of the Farm Bill, which will provide our 
Nation's farmers with meaningful and necessary assistance for the next 
5 years. I look forward to continuing to work with my House colleagues 
to enact effective reform in the financial sector as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on the amendment printed in part B of the House Report 110-
261, on which further proceedings were postponed.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kind

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind) 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 117, 
noes 309, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 747]

                               AYES--117

     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Harman
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hodes
     Holt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Keller
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lee
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Petri
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Sherman
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--309

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Feeney
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sarbanes
     Schmidt
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Kennedy
     LaHood
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2241

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland and Mr. FRANKS of Arizona changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. 
SHERMAN and Mr. WYNN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Boyda of Kansas) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the

[[Page 20886]]

state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of 
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________