[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9067-9094]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2419, FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 
                                  2008

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of 
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1189, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
May 13, 2008, at page 8545.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1189, 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and ask unanimous consent 
that he be allowed to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it's been a long road to get to this point, and I want 
to start off by thanking Mr. Goodlatte, the ranking member of the 
committee, again for his great work; my subcommittee chairmen, who 
started this process off; the ranking members on the Republican side; 
my friends on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel especially, Mr. 
Pomeroy, for their hard work to get to this point; the Speaker for 
backing us up and helping us keep on track here to get to a final 
consideration; and for all of my colleagues in the House for being 
patient and working with us and giving us your input.
  We have come to a point where I believe we have a good bill that 
should be supported by all Members of this Congress from both urban, 
suburban and rural areas.
  I have here a chart that shows how the current farm bill spending is 
going to be allocated on a 10-year basis, which is what we have to go 
by.
  Nutrition in this new Food, Conservation, and Energy Act is 74 
percent of the spending over the next 10 years in this food bill, 
commodities are 16 percent. Back in 2002, these numbers were 65 and 35 
or something. Conservation is 7 percent; and energy and the specialty 
crops, the other items, are 3 percent.
  This shows on another chart how we got to those numbers. We had a $58 
billion reduction in our baseline. What

[[Page 9068]]

happened, before we started because the prices were up and the amount 
of money going out to farmers was down, so we started off $58 billion 
in the hole. We were provided $10 billion from our friends in the Ways 
and Means Committee of additional spending over the baseline, and this 
is how that spending was allocated out.
  Nutrition was more than the $10 billion of new money that was put in 
the bill, $10.3 billion; conservation, an additional $4 billion; 
specialty crops, $2.3 billion; and in the commodity title, we actually 
had a reduction. In addition to the $58 billion that we reduced, we had 
another $3.6 billion that we took out of the commodity title to help 
put money into these other areas.
  Having done that, we still have an adequate safety net for farmers. 
It's very much like the current law that we have been operating under. 
We have made some minor changes, and we have brought the AGI limits 
down from $2.5 million to $500,000 on non-farm income, $750,000 on farm 
income. So we've made some reform, not as much as some people would 
like, but more than others would like. We got both sides a little bit 
upset so I think we're doing something pretty close to what we should.
  And to show you how the allocation is based on what the 2002 bill was 
and what the current bill is, this shows in yellow the 2002 bill and in 
the kind of purple color the current bill. In nutrition, you can see 
there's a substantial increase. Conservation, the commodity title is 
down, and energy is up a little bit.
  So we have I think a balanced bill that maintains a safety net. It 
includes a new disaster program that is paid for. This bill is paid 
for. The $10 billion comes out of a custom user fee extension which is 
not a tax increase, which has allowed us to have a bipartisan bill.
  We've put a bill together here that I think addresses what people are 
concerned about in this country. It has a loan guarantee program for 
cellulosic ethanol.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  It has a bioenergy reserve program to allow us to learn how to grow 
switch grass and how to harvest it and store it and move it; woody 
biomass so we can get cellulosic ethanol going.
  We have for the first time significant money in for fruits and 
vegetables, which are 50 percent of the agriculture in the United 
States.
  We have country-of-origin labeling. It's going to be mandatory on 
fruits and vegetables and meats starting September 30. We have 
interstate meat shipment, another issue that's been hanging on for 20 
years.
  We've solved a lot of problems in this bill. We have a bill I think 
that covers all the interests in the country, and we have a bill that 
we should all be proud to vote for in this House.
  Again, I want to thank all my colleagues for their hard work and look 
forward to having a strong vote on this and encourage you all to 
support this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes 
of the time allocated to me be granted to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) so that he can manage that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I rise today in support of the farm bill conference report. I thank 
the chairman and all of the other members of the Agriculture Committee 
on both sides of the aisle for working in such a bipartisan spirit to 
produce good legislation. I also thank my staff and the majority staff 
for their hard and, I know to them, seemingly endless work on this 
legislation.
  This farm bill contains solid reforms while addressing a variety of 
issues including forestry, rural development, renewable energy, 
nutrition, conservation, research, specialty crops, and livestock and 
still maintains the safety net necessary to ensure a safe, reliable and 
affordable domestic food supply. This farm bill is a good work product, 
and I am proud of the work we have done.
  The bill contains more reforms than any previous farm bill, 
eliminating payments to millionaire farmers, eliminating the three-
entity rule, and increasing the efficiency of the crop insurance 
program among numerous other reforms.
  It's 100 percent PAYGO-compliant and is fiscally responsible, scoring 
$4 billion less than the House bill and $5 billion less than the Senate 
bill. I think you would be hard-pressed, Mr. Speaker, to find a 
conference report in the history of this body that came back scoring 
less than the House and Senate bills. That is a significant 
achievement, and I think it would be foolish to overlook the positive 
changes this farm bill has undergone.
  When we talk about the farm bill, many believe that the Congress is 
voting on a $288 billion bill that goes directly to farmers. The truth 
is that only 17 percent of the farm bill spending is devoted to farm 
programs, while nearly 70 percent goes to the nutrition title alone. In 
fact, there is very little farm in a farm bill anymore.
  In 2002, the farm program funding comprised just three-quarters of 1 
percent of the Federal budget. Today, farm program funding accounts for 
just one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal budget, a twofold 
reduction in just 5 years.
  Agriculture policy is essential to the lives of every American, and 
it is important that the policy we formulate is responsible, effective 
and at a low cost to the taxpayer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  This bill meets those requirements. I support the farm bill because I 
believe American agriculture is vital to our national security, health 
and way of life, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it's planting season back home in Wisconsin. I still 
represent one of the largest agricultural producing districts in the 
entire Nation. Our farmers need a new farm bill. They need to know what 
the rules are that they have to work and live under.
  But we need to do a farm bill the right way, not the wrong way, one 
that maintains an important safety net for family farmers across the 
country and is also responsible to the American taxpayer.
  Unfortunately, I kind of feel like Paul Harvey here in the well today 
about to give the rest of the story. This farm bill could be summed up 
in simple words, it's a missed opportunity. In fact, it could be 
summarized by the phrase: Where's the beef? Where's the real reform?
  Why do I say that? Let's take a look for a second at the so-called 
reforms under the commodity subsidy programs. By the time you include 
off-farm and on-farm income and allow double entities, dual entities on 
the same farm, and their adjusted gross income, you have adjusted gross 
income up to $2.5 million and you still qualify for taxpayer subsidies. 
That would constitute approximately two-tenths of 1 percent of farm 
entities throughout the country that might be affected by these so-
called reforms under the direct payments.
  Now let's remind ourselves, these direct payments are $25 billion, 
that go out over the next 5 years, regardless of price, regardless of 
production. It's not a safety net. It's an entitlement program that 
each and every one of us will have to go home and look our taxpayers in 
the eyes and try to explain to them why some of their tax dollars are 
going to go to a farm entity with an adjusted gross income of $2.5 
million.

                              {time}  1415

  If you look at the loan deficiency program and the countercyclical, 
the two other subsidy programs that currently exist, we went in the 
wrong direction rather than the right direction with reform.

[[Page 9069]]

  There will still be allowed double dipping under the loan deficiency 
program. And the loan rates are being increased rather than decreased. 
And under the countercyclical, the target prices are going to be 
increased. What does that mean? It means that they will be triggered 
much earlier and will cost the taxpayer much more if prices start to 
decline.
  One of the reasons there is less funding under the commodity title is 
because we're at a record time of commodity prices throughout the 
country. In fact, since the last time the farm bill was on the floor 
last year for consideration, you look at the five major commodity 
titles, and they have gone up tremendously since that time: Wheat, an 
additional 126 percent; soybeans up 57 percent; corn up 45 percent; 
cotton, 32 percent; and rice, 31 percent. Those are the main subsidized 
crops that we have throughout the country. Yet, instead of going 
forward with some reasonable and imminently justifiable reform to 
tighten up these programs so it is more justifiable to the taxpayer, 
they're going in the opposite direction.
  I always believed that we had the capability, in light of current 
market prices, to produce a farm bill that maintains an important 
safety net for our family farmers but in a way that's less market and 
less trade distorting and is also justifiable to the American taxpayer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. KIND. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  Unfortunately, this farm bill falls short on that worthwhile goal. 
And unfortunately it's the American taxpayer who is currently facing 
increased costs of food and fuel that will be paying more over the next 
5 to 6 or 7 years by the time we get a chance to look at the next farm 
bill and talk about the reforms that may be needed.
  I led an effort 5 years ago under the last farm bill for some 
commonsense reforms. People back then said wait for the next one, it's 
coming. Well, I've been here long enough to understand that tomorrow 
never comes, and today is the opportunity we have, in light of current 
market prices, to do the right thing.
  I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the farm bill.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am going to recognize my 
good friend, Mr. Rangel, but before I do I would like to recognize Mr. 
Hall for a colloquy.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me in 
a colloquy regarding this bill, which I do support.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I would be happy to engage in a colloquy 
with my friend from New York.
  Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the chairman for his prior support of a 
muck soils conservation program. Unfortunately, this House language did 
not survive in conference.
  Existing programs like CREP do not address the needs of muck farmers, 
like the black dirt farmers in Orange County, New York. In the Hudson 
Valley, this has led to full retirement of soil and rent inflation.
  The needs that would have been addressed in the House bill remain. 
Proposed administrative changes in future CREP contracts will not 
address impacts of contracts that are in place today and will be for 
several years. These are ongoing challenges for farmers in my district 
and throughout the northeast, growers of specialty crops and producers 
of muck crops who have been thrice underserved by previous farm bills.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ask if he would be willing to 
continue working with USDA on solutions that will meet conservation 
goals and address unintended economic consequences of existing 
programs.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the Congressman from New York for 
his remarks and his work on this issue.
  These are, indeed, some serious concerns about the implementation of 
the New York CREP and its impact on the gentleman's muck farmers. It is 
my understanding that USDA and the State of New York have taken steps 
to ensure that any new enrollments will not have such negative impacts.
  The conference report under consideration directs the Secretary to 
work with the producers in New York's muck soil areas to use existing 
programs to help implement farm bill conservation programs on acres 
still under production.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the Congressman from New 
York on this issue in the future.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, without whose tremendous work we wouldn't be here today. So, 
Mr. Rangel, we very much appreciate, on the Agriculture Committee, your 
effort, and you, Mr. Pomeroy, as well, to help us get this bill to the 
final end.
  Mr. RANGEL. I know that some of you may wonder why an old man like me 
from Harlem would have an interest in the ag bill, but when I hear my 
distinguished colleague from New York talk about muck farming, it's 
very important to us as a farm State that we be involved in those type 
of things. But the truth of the matter is that, while I recognize there 
are times to be quiet and to listen and look intelligent, I had Earl 
Pomeroy right there at my side asking, what are they talking about?
  I've learned a lot about trust funds that I didn't even know 
existed--and some of you didn't know. But the truth of the matter is 
that, while I recognize that Mr. Kind was looking for a bill that, as a 
person that concerned themselves in agriculture, that at the end of the 
day we have to play the cards that have been given to us. And so I do 
know the good that has come out of this bill and the pride that I got 
as a Member of this Congress and seeing the work that Mr. Peterson has 
been able to do, working with the Republicans on the other side, in all 
parts of the bill, in all parts of the leadership on the House and on 
the Senate side and with them. And I'm telling you, if all of us could 
have the optimism that he has displayed in the last few years about the 
salvation of our country, we would have no problems.
  It was like a big jigsaw puzzle, and each time he told me we got the 
last piece there, and when he plugged it in, something even bigger 
dropped out. We buried this bill so many times, but I'm glad to see 
that, through the bipartisanship, the friendship, and the cooperation, 
we will be able to give this country and the world a product that we're 
proud of, a product that our farmers have worked on to be able to be 
the food basket not only of the world, with special provisions, but of 
the many people in our great country that are so in need of food. I'm 
proud to be a Member and proud to be a part of this.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I say this regretfully, but this bill is an absence of 
leadership. This bill shows that we're not leading, that America is not 
leading, that the new majority is not leading.
  Why do I say that? The new majority brought this bill to the floor 
and they waived PAYGO. They swept PAYGO under the rug and they're 
violating PAYGO in two places in this bill alone. They'll say, we're 
trying to conform with the Senate PAYGO rules. Well, that does so at 
the very expense of the House PAYGO rules. What I find interesting is, 
right after this bill is passed they're bringing up the new budget 
resolution, which if that passed before this bill passed would violate 
the Senate PAYGO rules. How convenient.
  The point is this: We're sweeping money under the rug; this bill is 
hiding $23 billion in extra costs, it's not even measuring the amount 
of payment increases and price increases that are in here. But where 
this is really a loss in leadership is, I don't think the American 
taxpayer, who is having a hard time making ends meet today, who is 
stretching their paycheck really far with high gas and food prices, 
likes the idea that we're going to give couples earning $2.5 million 
subsidies for growing agriculture. Why are we giving agriculture 
subsidies to multimillionaires? This does not reflect the values

[[Page 9070]]

that the taxpayers sent us here to achieve.
  More to the point, Mr. Speaker, this will hurt the family farmers. 
That's what a farm bill ought to be about, helping family farmers, not 
corporate farmers. But by doing it this way, we're making it harder to 
open up markets for our family farmers so they can sell their corn, 
their beans, their dairy, and all their other products in foreign 
markets. Ninety-seven percent of the world's consumers don't live in 
this country, they're in other countries. We should open those markets 
for their products.
  This bill, with its huge subsidies, closes those markets, it hurts 
the Third World from being able to lift their life out of poverty, and 
it wastes taxpayer dollars. And all you have to do is look at the rule 
that passed that says, ``Waive PAYGO one more time. The rules don't 
apply. Let's hide all this extra spending.''
  This, among many other reasons, is why people should vote against 
this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a ranking member of 
one of our subcommittees.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a few brief 
observations about H.R. 2419, the farm bill.
  Now, let me preface my comments by noting that this is a 
representative democracy. And while I may not always agree with the 
actions of this body, I am obligated to vote the will of my Oklahoma 
constituents.
  My farmers and ranchers want a farm bill. They know how important it 
is to have a comprehensive Federal farm policy for both producers and 
consumers of American's food and fiber. They've watched as the majority 
leadership of this body ordered the cut of $300 million of direct farm 
commodity support. And soon they will figure out that a single--maybe 
earmark is not the proper phrase, a single project in this package will 
spend almost $250 million to subsidize the land purchased by a private 
entity.
  They know that the committee had no new money to spend on production 
agriculture when we started to write this bill. And they will be amazed 
when they realize that the majority leadership of the House demanded 
and received $10 billion in new government nutrition programs.
  They thrived under the flexibility of the last two farm bills. They 
understand that raising target prices and loan rates is a step back to 
the old days of Federal Government making planting decisions for them.
  Mr. Speaker, it's not hard to read between the lines. The elected 
leaderships of my farm groups back home fear that this is the best that 
this body is capable of with this House leadership. And they are 
frightened of all the leading candidates for President.
  I understand the fear my fellow farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma have 
for the future of agriculture, and at their request I will vote for 
this, as we would say back home in Oklahoma, ``half a loaf.'' But this 
process and this policy, I fear, aren't good for American food 
producers or American food consumers.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to my vice chairman and the distinguished chairman of the 
Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research Subcommittee, Mr. Holden 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the chairman for yielding to me and I rise in 
support of the conference report. But I also rise to congratulate and 
commend our chairman and ranking member for a job well done.
  This is a bipartisan product. This committee, we very seldom have 
partisan disagreements, but we have regional differences, and this bill 
reflects those regional differences. It also reflects that all of us 
had to give, all of us had to compromise. Every title of this bill is a 
compromise that all of us worked together so that we can accomplish.
  In title I, we were able to maintain the safety net at the same time 
to have reform written into this law. Title II on conservation, an 
increase of $4 billion of investment in conservation programs.
  Everyone is talking about the price of energy in this country, and 
for the first time in an ag bill we have a significant investment in 
energy. We have a loan guarantee program for cellulosic ethanol that's 
going to allow us to begin to wean ourselves off dependency on foreign 
energy.
  And the nutrition title in this bill is over a $10 billion increase 
in investment in nutrition programs in the Department of Agriculture. 
This is a good bipartisan agreement, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I represent one of the largest 
agriculture districts in the Nation, western Wisconsin. We do a lot of 
corn, a lot of soybeans, a lot of beef cattle, obviously a lot of 
dairy. I've got a 200-acre farm myself, and we rotate corn and 
soybeans, have some beef cattle on it. One of the additional concerns I 
have with the subsidy programs is how skewed it is to the very biggest 
entities.
  Over two-thirds of these commodity subsidy programs are going to the 
10 percent largest entities in agriculture today. Why is this a problem 
where I'm from? Well, a lot of these big entities are using the 
additional subsidy money to gobble up the family farms that exist 
around them. It's driving up land prices in Wisconsin and making it 
virtually impossible for new beginning farmers to enter agriculture.
  If you look at the reforms that are being touted in this farm bill 
before us today, they just don't meet the test of time. The income 
limits that apply currently to direct payments, by the time you count 
dual incomes on the same farm go as high as 2.5 million in adjusted 
gross income. That's after expenses. That's after all the cost of doing 
business is deducted out. And according to last year's tax returns, for 
those who filed a Schedule F Farm Income Report for tax purposes, these 
reforms that are being touted today might affect two-tenths of 1 
percent of farm entities throughout the country, two-tenths of 1 
percent. Give me a break. And the income limits have been lifted for 
the other two subsidy programs, the loan deficiency program and the 
countercyclical program.
  And to top it all off, they've created the granddaddy of all earmarks 
in this Permanent Disaster Fund, which we all know, based on past 
history, is going to be a very targeted, very regional dispersion of 
this new Disaster Relief Fund.

                              {time}  1430

  Now, when you think about the fact you've got three existing subsidy 
programs already, LDP, counter-cyclical, the direct payments, you throw 
on top of that the crop insurance subsidization that goes on in the 
farm bill, why do we need to add another layer of entitlement funding 
with this new disaster relief program? But we all understand how these 
farm bills come together. They usually go above baseline. They have to 
come to the Ways and Means Committee to find offsets in order to pay 
for it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  They come up with enough money to throw at enough groups, at enough 
individuals, at enough programs in order to buy people off around here. 
And it's the reform effort that's the first casualty in this entire 
process. We saw it 5 years ago. We're seeing it today. My fear is we're 
going to see it 6 or 7 years from now when the next farm bill is up for 
consideration.
  It is a missed opportunity. The President is right. We ought not be 
giving taxpayer subsidies to wealthy individuals at a time of record-
high commodity prices in the marketplace.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the 
chairman of the Specialty Crops, Rural Development and Foreign 
Agriculture Subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McIntyre) for 1 minute.

[[Page 9071]]


  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a victory for farmers, a 
victory for communities, a victory for rural America.
  As chairman of the Rural Development Subcommittee, I'm pleased that 
this conference report contains strong rural development title that 
supports small business, expands access to broadband, and addresses the 
critical infrastructure backlog at the USDA. I'm very excited that this 
conference report also authorizes regional development economic 
commissions across the country to put a Federal focus on jobs and 
economic development.
  At a time when our economy is struggling, the authorization of the 
Southeast Crescent Authority, or called the Southern Regional Economic 
Commission in this bill, represents a great opportunity to help our 
rural communities thrive for generations to come. It will also help 
small business through the new Rural Entrepreneur and Microenterprise 
Assistance Program that will provide technical and financial assistance 
to businesses employing less than ten people, which are the fastest 
generators of new jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have an opportunity to move rural 
America forward and no longer leave it behind with business and 
economic opportunity, and that's what this farm bill does. And may 
Congress follow suit to do the same.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, sometimes here in Washington, we tend to drink our own 
bath water and believe our own press releases. And to hear some of the 
debate here, you would think this is the best bill in the world and 
that everybody out there has got to support it.
  Let me just read a couple of editorials from around the country to 
give you an idea of how this bill is being played outside of 
Washington:
  The Columbus Dispatch: ``The current compromise version of the farm 
bill includes little retreat from the subsidy program that for decades 
has bled taxpayers, fattened the already fat, distorted market 
incentives, soured U.S. trade, hurt the environment, and done little 
for family farmers.''
  The San Francisco Chronicle: ``From the fiscal watchdog perspective, 
this bill is a sign that the new Democratic leadership is as profligate 
as the Republican leadership it replaced. Make that more profligate . . 
. The $286 billion farm bill is good politics only because the millions 
of taxpayers who are paying the bill are not pushing as hard as the 
relatively few who benefit.''
  The Albany Times: ``Corn prices are up. Same for flour. That means 
farmers are enjoying boom times . . . So why would Congress even think 
of giving more generous subsidies?'' That's a good question.
  The Spartanburg Herald-Journal: 
`` . . . The fact that reform has failed, and Congress is about to pass 
a renewal of the same failed, wasteful subsidies, is a testament to all 
that's wrong with politics in Washington . . . Congress has reached a 
House/Senate compromise bill that will continue to take money from you 
and other families struggling with high food prices to further enrich 
big corporate farmers who are already earning record prices for their 
crops.''
  The Dallas Morning News: ``The legislators negotiating the new farm 
bill evidently don't do their own grocery shopping. Otherwise, they'd 
have seen the dramatic rise in food prices. And they'd have done more 
than trim only $400 million from the $26 billion in direct-payment 
subsidies they're planning for farmers . . .''
  We can do a lot better than this. I want to associate myself with the 
comments of Mr. Kind from Wisconsin. Taxpayers expect more.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), 
a ranking member on the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. HAYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this farm bill and especially to 
thank Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte and really 
especially the incredible members of the House Republican and Democrat 
staff for their tremendous work on this very difficult legislation.
  However, I must oppose a provision that should not be in this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation needs an agriculture policy for the 21st 
century. Anyone who is paying attention to their grocery bill lately 
can see that things are changing around the world and in this country. 
It's showing up in the price of food. If you're keeping up with the 
news, the changes we are seeing in higher prices are being played out 
as full-blown food shortages in other parts of the world. Sound 
agriculture policy is not just about our economy; it's a key component 
in our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, we need this legislation, and I support the passage of 
the agriculture provisions. But there is a provision that was added 
late in the process that has nothing to do with agriculture, nothing to 
do with farmers or our food supply. It's a provision that will 
liberalize our current trade practices with Haiti.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the impact of this Haiti provision 
will be. Two of the leading textile groups say the impact will be 
minimal while the positive benefits of the farm bill will be much 
greater. While I would reject this policy change under any procedure, 
this Haiti provision was added without hearings, without any debate. 
Mr. Speaker, out of principle I don't think this is the time or the 
place to add this trade provision with Haiti. And, therefore, to make 
that point, I am going to cast a ``no'' vote on the farm bill 
conference report today.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. My vote today is to protest this 
Haiti provision, but my goal is to ensure passage of the farm bill. I 
know there's a veto threat from the White House. If the President 
decides to follow through, I will be there voting to override him 
because we need this update for our Nation's policy.
  Mr. Speaker, after a very lengthy conference process, I am pleased to 
report significant victories in the ag portion of this bill. As the 
Ranking Member of Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, I worked with my 
colleagues to eliminate or water down many of the Livestock Competition 
issues that were included in the Senate passed Farm bill. Most 
importantly, we were able to defeat the inclusion of the ban on packer 
ownership. This ban would have been detrimental to North Carolina and 
the livestock industry across the nation.
  The economic adjustment assistance program for textile mills is 
another significant provision included in this bill. This important 
provision will provide critical assistance to textile manufactures for 
the modernization of equipment and operations. This is a priority for 
our leading domestic textile organizations including the National 
Council of Textile Organizations, the Cotton Council and the American 
Manufacturing and Trade Action Coalition.
  The White House or anyone else watching, should not read my ``no'' 
vote today as opposition to passage of the agriculture provisions in 
the Farm Bill. Our Nation needs updated agriculture policy. As a member 
of the Agriculture Committee and conferee to this bill, I had a hand in 
shaping these changes. We ultimately need to get this done, and I will 
be there to make sure it does.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize 
the distinguished chairman of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry 
Subcommittee, who is responsible for having the first-ever livestock 
title in the farm bill, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) for 1 
minute.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Peterson, for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. And I would 
just say to my friend Mr. Kind, we all want the whole loaf of bread but 
sometimes we take a few slices, and you have to know that lots of 
reform has taken place.
  As chairman of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee, 
working with my ranking member over here, Mr. Hayes, we have got the 
first-ever livestock title. It offers producers much-needed protections 
and ensures fairness and transparency within the marketplace.

[[Page 9072]]

  I'm proud of this bipartisan bill. It also has a strong title for the 
dairy industry. Together we were able to bring producers and processors 
together on issues that have divided the industry for years. We were 
able to bring together the National Milk Producers Association and the 
International Dairy Food Association, with their excellent leadership, 
to avoid a very controversial issue in the dairy forward pricing 
program. Also, in the dairy title we ensure our dairy producers have an 
adequate safety net and our dairy industry continues to thrive.
  The farm bill will provide a safety net for farmers and increase 
conservation efforts so that we can protect the land for future 
generations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 10 seconds.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Everybody, every man, woman, and child, has a vested 
interest in the farm bill. We have access to the most plentiful, 
safest, least expensive food in the world. Mr. Rangel gets it. Mr. 
Ackerman gets it. We should all get it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, Indiana is agriculture, but Hoosiers on and 
off the farm also believe in fiscal discipline and reform. And it's for 
these reasons that I regretfully express my opposition to this farm 
bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
  During my years of service on the House Agriculture Committee, I have 
sought to be a voice for Indiana family farmers and an advocate for 
reform. I have worked to advocate changes in this legislation. And I 
want to express my profound appreciation to Chairman Peterson and to 
Ranking Member Goodlatte for including provisions in this farm bill 
that will save Indiana jobs and create new opportunities for farmers 
across the Midwest. While I differ ultimately in the support for the 
final product, I respect deeply these two men and am grateful for their 
work on behalf of these issues.
  I'm opposing the farm bill because I believe it's fiscally 
irresponsible and does not contain the kind of reforms in American 
agriculture that these times demand. This bill fails to reduce 
government subsidies to farmers, fails to encourage market-based 
reforms to the Nation's agricultural policy, and fails to promote 
international trade. It also fails to meet our Nation's farm policy 
needs within our own budget guidelines.
  The farm bill being considered today will actually increase the size 
and scope of government and will cost taxpayers more than $650 billion 
over the next 10 years. In comparison with the previous farm bill, this 
bill will cost $65 billion a year as opposed to the $45 billion before. 
It is in effect a 44 percent increase in spending.
  And let me say I support family farming and I loathe the demagoguery 
of many who criticize farm subsidy programs, ignoring completely the 
real world input costs that American farmers face. But this bill still 
goes too far, in my judgment. It will continue to allow married couples 
with household incomes up to $2.5 million to receive subsidies. Subsidy 
payments oftentimes, under this legislation and previous bills, are 
concentrated in the hands of a few with the top 10 percent of 
recipients receiving nearly two-thirds of all farm payments.
  There are other problems with this bill as well. It will allow 
farmers to lock in price support payments at the lowest possible market 
price and sell their crops at the highest price. And the bill also 
ignores the plight of consumers facing skyrocketing food prices by 
making a bad sugar program worse.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor with a sense of melancholy about 
this, having been on the Agriculture Committee during development of 
the last farm bill and coming from the great State of Indiana. It has 
always been my ambition to support Indiana farmers, to support them 
with Federal policy that enables farmers to sustain the American 
cutting edge in global agriculture. But I have always sought to do that 
in a way that protects our Federal budget and protects the American 
taxpayer at large.
  It's for those reasons that I am opposing this farm bill legislation 
and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the tag team here for allowing me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, and I 
commend my friend for his patience and his persistence in bringing to 
this body this consensus product.
  I realize that fewer and fewer Americans have a direct connection to 
the land. One reason is because it's becoming quite tough to make a 
living in production agriculture. And certainly that disconnect to 
rural America is evident here on the floor of the House. Dwight 
Eisenhower once said, ``Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a 
pencil and you're a thousand miles away from the cornfield.''
  Or to put it another way, Mr. Chairman, I quote from the saying on 
the plaque in your office that says, ``If farming were easy, 
Congressmen would do it.''
  Well, I am a farmer. I'm the son of a farmer. I'm the grandson of a 
farmer.
  Agriculture runs in cycles, and sometimes those cycles are pretty 
volatile. In September of 2005 during our corn harvest after Hurricane 
Katrina, the price of corn at a river terminal in Southeast Missouri 
was $1.40, and I don't recall anybody other than yours truly coming to 
the floor to extol that fact.

                              {time}  1445

  Yesterday, that same bushel of corn would have brought $5.97 at least 
on the Chicago Board of Trade, and even that isn't a windfall. And 
because we know that it is 47 percent more this year to plant one acre 
of corn in Missouri than it was last year, fertilizer is up 112 
percent. Grain contracts and loans are getting harder to come by. Debt 
has increased by 30 percent in the last 5 years. We know farming looks 
a lot today like it did before the crash of the 1980s.
  And we also know with all respect to those who talk about profligate 
spending, that about three-quarters of the farm bill dollar in this 
bill will not go to farmers but to the equally noble goal of ensuring 
that Americans have enough to eat. And quite frankly I expect that most 
of the farm payments to production agriculture in this bill will never 
have to be paid because the market price is going to be above the 
trigger level.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the farm bill. In doing so, I thank 
my good friend Chairman Peterson for bringing a bill we can all support 
to the floor. I must say that without his leadership, we would have 
never reached this point.
  This, Mr. Speaker, is the last farm bill I will vote on as a Member 
of this great House. And as I do so, I think of my dad, the founder of 
my family's farm. He built our farm using not Government handouts but 
hard work, business savvy and penny-pinching.
  By creating this successful small business he was able to save just 
enough to plant the next year's crop and send his only son to college. 
Many who oppose this bill would probably point to my dad as one of 
those rich farmers who doesn't need a safety net. In response, I quote 
Dwight Eisenhower, ``farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a 
pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.''
  Those of us who actually farm, know farming isn't easy. We know that 
it now costs $534, or 47 percent more than last year, to plant 1 acre 
of corn in Missouri and we know fertilizer is up 112 percent from last 
year. We know that farming looks a lot like it did in the 1970s.
  For those who don't remember, during the 1970s we had conditions much 
like today; healthy world demand took prices to all-time highs. Many 
farmers cashed in their land's equity and bought new land to chase 
these high prices. Then Government policies changed, including the 
grain embargo to the Soviet Union after their invasion of Afghanistan, 
and the market crashed.

[[Page 9073]]

  I remember that policy well; it was the first time I realized that 
factors beyond our farm gate could determine the fate of our farm. I 
later learned that it nearly cost us our farm.
  Ultimately, the crash of the 1980s caused thousands of farms to go 
under and when they did they took with them 300 agricultural banks, 
countless business that depended on farmers, and even some entire rural 
communities.
  The similarities to today are striking. Today farm debt sets a new 
record every year, increasing 30 percent, or $52.8 billion, in the last 
5 years. The price of land has once again risen to 1970s-esque highs, 
climbing 67 percent since 2003.
  Now I am not saying that we can expect a crash, I don't know what the 
market will do over the next few years--no one does. What I am saying 
is that now is not the time to support irresponsible cuts to the safety 
net.
  Now I know, the opponents of the farm bill will say they don't 
support irresponsible cuts, they only want ``reform.'' There is reform 
in this bill, there is a lower income cap, there are reforms to the 
loan programs and the bill does away with the three-entity rule.
  I know, the reformers will counter by saying these reforms don't go 
far enough. But if their reform plan--the Kind-Flake Amendment--would 
have passed and prices would have declined during the life of the farm 
bill, then ``most of the farms and ranches would not be able to survive 
the erosion in farm income,'' according to the independent Agriculture 
and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University.
  The bottom line is that Chairman Peterson has engineered an excellent 
compromise. It provides $209 billion for food stamps and school 
lunches. The bill also provides $25 billion for conservation programs, 
including enough funding to enroll nearly 13 million acres, or an area 
the size of West Virginia, into the Conservation Security Program. And 
the bill provides $35 billion to help farmers stay afloat.
  The good news is if prices stay at their current level, most of those 
authorized dollars will never have to be paid. The safety net in the 
2002 Farm Bill cost $20 billion less than what it was projected to 
cost, because commodity prices stayed high.
  This bill is not a windfall; it is a basic safety net for our 
farmers. This safety net costs each taxpayer 6 cents a day. In return, 
farmers provide the safest, most abundant food supply at the lowest 
cost--just 11 percent of our income goes toward food, the lowest total 
in the world.
  So I ask all of my colleagues to support this compromise. I am sure 
every Member can find things to oppose in this bill, there are 
certainly parts I oppose and I know there are even parts of the bill 
that Chairman Peterson opposes. But at the end of the day, we cannot 
allow the perfect to be the enemy of the farmer. Support the farm bill.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize 
the chairman of the General Farm Commodities and Risk Management 
subcommittee, the outstanding chairman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Etheridge) for 1 minute.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the chairman and ranking 
member for their hard work. And I stand in support of this conference 
report.
  This truly is a bipartisan piece of legislation that the House 
Agriculture Committee has produced and one that affects every citizen 
in this country.
  Agriculture is the number one industry in my home State of North 
Carolina. It is responsible for $66 billion in income and employs 
almost one-fifth of the State's workforce.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we have a stable farm policy in this 
country, not just for North Carolina, but for every child that 
participates in the nutrition program, for every food bank and for 
every school lunch program.
  The bill increases the funding for the Nation's nutrition programs by 
over $10 billion, provides over $1.1 billion for renewable energy, and 
increases funding for conservation efforts by $6.6 billion.
  And for new and growing sectors of agriculture like organic foods, we 
have included, for the first time, mandatory funding for specialty crop 
research and marketing.
  And we are able to do all this while ensuring that the safety net for 
our farmers remains intact, ensuring that no matter what, our citizens 
will always have a stable food supply.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the minority leader, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I have been around the House 
Agriculture Committee for nearly 18 years. The chairman and I came 
together. We are good friends, and so is the ranking Republican, Mr. 
Goodlatte. And I know they have worked hard to produce this bill.
  But clearly, most Americans think that Washington is broken. And this 
farm bill frankly is another example of that. I know there is some 
reform in this bill. But when you begin to step back and look at the 
bill, we didn't get anywhere near the reform that I think most 
Americans would expect.
  At a time when we have got the highest commodity prices that we have 
seen in a generation, you would think that we would take a slightly 
different approach to the farm bill. But unfortunately, because of the 
process, because of the negotiations, it didn't happen. I just want to 
point out what I would describe as the most egregious part of this.
  I, or one of my designees, will have a motion to recommit this 
conference report. And it is no secret that politicians have 
traditionally used and abused the farm bill for their own pet projects. 
There are three pet projects in this bill that I am going to single out 
in my motion to recommit.
  One, it would strip out the ``Trail to Nowhere,'' a land swap that 
was airdropped into the bill by the senior Senator from Vermont. The 
language would require the U.S. Forest Service to sell portions of the 
Green Mountain National Forest exclusively to Vermont's Bromley Ski 
Resort. And believe it or not, to accommodate this obscure demand, 
portions of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail may have to be moved. 
They are actually going to move the Appalachian Scenic Trail, possibly 
have to move it, because we are going to sell this land to a ski 
resort. I don't think the taxpayers ought to have to bankroll this 
boondoggle.
  Secondly, our motion will strip out a $170 million earmark for the 
salmon industry that was airdropped into this bill in secret. The 
provision was never considered in the House. It was never considered in 
the Senate. One hundred seventy million dollars to bail out salmon 
fisheries. Now you should also note that after Hurricane Katrina, when 
the entire gulf coast fishing industry was annihilated, they actually 
only got $126 million from the Federal Government to fix their 
fisheries. I don't think taxpayers ought to be required to put up the 
money for an airdropped earmark that was brought into this bill never 
having been considered in either body.
  Finally, our proposal would strip out a $250 million earmark secured 
by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the gentleman from 
Montana. This earmark, incredibly enough, is targeted for forests to 
house fish. Yes. We are going to target a forest that houses fish, 
incredibly, what we would call ``forest fish.'' Only one forest in the 
country happens to have fish in it. And it just happens to be based in 
Montana, located in Montana where the Senator is from. I don't think 
the taxpayers ought to have to pay $250 million to take care of forest 
fish.
  Listen, the American people are struggling with the high cost of 
living, whether it is the cost of gasoline, the cost of food, trying to 
make sure that they have got health care, concerned about whether they 
have a job tomorrow or will be able to afford their home mortgage. And 
here we are moving a farm bill that has earmarks in it that just don't 
pass the straight-face test.
  And so I would ask my colleagues, if you think that this is a wise 
use of taxpayer funds, you can go ahead and vote against this motion to 
recommit. But I would invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
if you think that taxpayer funds could be spent more wisely, vote for 
the motion to recommit, and let's make this bill a better bill. We can 
do better.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to a strong advocate of reform and for a strong conservation title in 
this farm bill, my good friend from Oregon, Earl Blumenauer.

[[Page 9074]]


  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate 
his leadership.
  I heard my friend from Missouri talk about the lack of connection to 
rural America. And I think that is, in fact, the case. And we are 
missing an opportunity with this farm bill to try to strengthen it 
because this farm bill continues to shortchange most farmers. It will 
fail to fund the majority of the environmental programs that go 
lacking. And most farmers will continue to get nothing, nothing from 
this bill. The richest 10 percent will get two-thirds to three-quarters 
of the total direct farm payments.
  There are a number of things in this bill that I like, that I have 
been working for since the last farm bill to help provide some support 
for people who grow food, not just the five big commodities. I am glad 
that there is an increase in nutrition. But the reason the President 
should, and I think will, veto this bill has nothing to do with the 
good stuff. It is time to reform the farm bill, to reduce to $200,000 
limit on AGI to qualify for subsidy. That is what the President is 
arguing for. That is the right thing to do. It is something that we 
ought to be able to have a bipartisan majority to support.
  It will save the taxpayers money. It will enable us to fully fund the 
environmental programs that are so critical, particularly for small and 
medium-sized farmers and ranchers. We don't have to shortchange 
nutrition. The nutrition provisions ought to be strengthened with money 
we save from unneeded payments to the rich.
  We have lots of money that is flowing to the richest farmers in 
America who don't need it. That's wrong. In fact, they have assumed 
that this bill is so egregious, I invite any of my colleagues to look 
at section 1619. The authors of the bill carve out an exemption to the 
Freedom of Information Act so that the recent Circuit Court ruling that 
would open this up to a spotlight is off limits.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has 
expired.
  Mr. KIND. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. We should not drop a veil of secrecy over this bill. 
We should open it up. Let the American public know what is in it. If 
for no other reason, the notion that we are going to play a game of 
``hide-the-marble'' with them, and not be honest about the true cost 
and the true benefits is another illustration of what is wrong with 
this bill, why the President should veto it, and why each and every 
Member should sustain that veto.
  We can do a lot better for less money to help more farmers and 
ranchers. And I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize 
the distinguished chairman of the Department Operations, Oversight, 
Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee, one of our outstanding chairmen, 
Mr. Baca of California.
  Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I want to 
thank our chairman, Collin Peterson, for his leadership. I want to 
thank the minority ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte, in supporting this 
historic farm bill which I strongly support. As Chair of the Department 
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee, I am 
strongly supportive of this bill that increases nutrition by $10.364 
billion.
  Right now, there are 38 million Americans who do not have enough food 
to eat. This farm bill helps these people. It fights hunger in America 
by making an historic investment in nutrition programs that will help 
13 million American families. This will help an additional 10 million 
Americans, including 320,000 working poor families, 380,000 elderly and 
disabled, plus our veterans. This will help put food on the table for 
many individuals that don't have food.
  This farm bill also ensures that low-income elementary school 
children will have access to fresh fruits and vegetables in schools by 
expanding the USDA snack program to all 50 States leaving no child 
behind who is left hungry.
  I ask you to support this farm bill. It is an important farm bill. I 
urge everyone to vote for it.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield myself 1 minute.
  We have mentioned the generous subsidies that still flow to 
multimillionaire farmers. Let me just put that in perspective in this 
legislation. With this legislation, a farm couple earning $2.5 million 
in combined on-farm and off-farm income is still eligible for hundreds 
of thousands of dollars in farm payments. Yet an urban couple earning a 
little more than $17,800 or owning more than one vehicle can become 
ineligible for food stamp benefits.
  Now I am not making an argument that we should raise the threshold 
for food stamp benefits. But look at the difference here. How in the 
world can you justify having a farm couple with on-farm and off-farm 
income of $2.5 million still eligible for hundreds of thousands of 
dollars in subsidies? It is simply indefensible.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 6\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Arizona has 15 seconds remaining. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my 
friend from Arizona that if you know of the farm couple where each 
person has $500,000 in off-farm income and each has $750,000 in farm 
income, the two limits we have imposed, down from $2.5 million to 
$500,000 for nonfarm income and never before limited to $750,000, I 
would like to meet that couple, and then we will fix that problem.
  I yield to the gentleman from New York 1 minute.
  Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues 
in congratulating Chairman Peterson and Ranking Minority Member 
Goodlatte in bringing this bill to the floor in very difficult times. I 
rise in support of the farm bill conference agreement.
  Agriculture is one of the most important industries in New York 
State, believe it or not. In the 29th District alone, there are over 
6,000 farms covering more than 1.2 million acres and employing 
thousands of workers. Annually, the farm economy generates over $360 
million in my district alone.
  During the writing of the farm bill, I hoped to address some of the 
most pressing issues facing New York farmers without destroying 
important provisions for other States, districts or industries.

                              {time}  1500

  The committee held a field hearing in my district, where we heard 
about issues such as extending the MILC program, increasing funding for 
specialty crops such as apples and grapes, enhancing conservation 
programs such as FRPP and EQIP, augmenting nutrition and food 
assistance policy, and utilizing our crops to assist in developing a 
strong renewable energy portfolio.
  This bill makes historic investments in priorities to strengthen the 
fruit and the vegetable industry and expands a variety of things like 
the snack program. I hope my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize 
one of the members of the conference committee, a valuable member of 
our committee, Mr. Scott of Georgia, for 1 minute.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, is this a perfect 
bill? No, but is it a good bill, yes. It's a good bill for the people 
of America in response precisely to their needs now.
  The American people are concerned about high food prices, this brings 
it down. They are concerned about high gas prices, this bill brings it 
down. One of the most pressing areas that this bill does good on, it 
corrects a major injustice to African American farmers by passing a 
bill which includes $100 million to set up a fund so that these black 
farmers can have their day in court, something they fought for for 
years.
  It also has money in here to set up research grants for predominantly 
African American land-grant colleges of 1890, Florida A&M University, 
agriculture, mechanical; Arkansas A&M

[[Page 9075]]

University, agriculture, mechanical; North Carolina A&T, agriculture 
and technical. These schools were grounded in agriculture. But, yet, 
because of past discrimination, the black farmers and black colleges 
have been denied.
  This good bill corrects that. We must pass this bill and make sure 
that this bill passes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who is a 
subcommittee ranking member on the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
  There have been a lot of figures and a lot of terms thrown around in 
this room today about payment limits and adjusted gross income, but 
let's really talk about what this bill is about, and what this bill is 
about is feeding and clothing the American people, to making sure that 
they continue to have access to the safest, highest quality products in 
the world. By the way, they are also the most affordable.
  Now, one of the things that some people talk about is all of these 
rich farmers. Now, I will tell you it's very interesting. If it is as 
lucrative as everyone says, why is the number of farmers in America 
dropping? Go to a Farm Bureau meeting some evening in west Texas and 
see how many young farmers are dying to get into the farming business, 
or even have the capacity to get into the farming business.
  I think it's also interesting, when we look at this bill, that about 
70 percent of this bill has to do with providing an opportunity for 
those people that need a little extra helping hand to make sure that 
they do have a quality meal during the day, and that is in some of our 
food stamp and nutrition programs. Yet only 12 percent of this bill has 
anything to do with growing something.
  Now, let me tell you that if you are going to feed and clothe people, 
I want everybody to know that those things just don't show up at the 
department store and the grocery store. Somebody actually has to 
produce it. We have hardworking farm families all over America that are 
fulfilling that commitment.
  Let me tell you, it's difficult, the prices that some people have 
been talking about, well, the prices of these commodities are up. Yes, 
they are up, but let me tell you, look back 2 or 3 years ago when a lot 
of people wouldn't plant certain commodities because they couldn't make 
any money doing it.
  The other question about this bill is, yes, it's about making sure 
Americans have quality agricultural products, but it's also about who 
is going to provide it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. We have to make a decision today. In this energy 
situation this country is in, we are relying on other people to provide 
energy for America. Are we going to let American agriculture die so we 
have to let other countries feed and clothe America? I don't think the 
American people want that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his hard 
work and the chairman for his hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, I will hit a quick list in my 1 minute. This bill cuts 
direct payments. We should not do that. That's green box, and that 
helps us stay in compliance with WTO.
  It cuts a blenders' credit on ethanol. We should not do that, because 
that slows capital investment into ethanol production from corn.
  It requires Davis-Bacon wage scales, which will reduce the numbers of 
ethanol plants we can build from five with the same money down to four. 
It imposes union scale in the countryside. We should not do that.
  It has in it Pigford farms, which the gentleman spoke to, that's ripe 
with fraud. I will prove that over the months as it unfolds.
  The other side of this coin is--you have to ask and answer this 
question--how does this bill get better if it fails here on the floor 
of this Congress? What comes out of the House and the Senate in a 
better configuration? Does it get better or does it get worse?
  If you can paint a scenario by which it gets better, then you vote 
``no.'' If you paint a scenario by which it gets worse, you vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin), a 
valuable member of our committee.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I want to congratulate the chairman and the 
ranking member of the full committee for this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the important reforms and preserving the 
safety net and the commodity title as well as important increases in 
the nutrition and conservation titles, I worked with the chairman of 
the full committee during the House version of the markup to place an 
emphasis on beginning farmers and ranchers. This conference report 
includes a number of important provisions, including reauthorizing tax-
exempt bonds to provide low-interest loans to beginning farmers and 
ranchers, increasing the loan limit for them from $250,000 to $450,000 
and indexing that limit amount for inflation. There are also important 
provisions in the credit and research titles of this conference report 
for beginning farmers and ranchers.
  The energy title is another area that as Mr. Holden, the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy and Research, pointed 
out, the loan guarantees for advance biofuel production plants, 
reauthorizing the Rural Energy for America Program which provides the 
loans, loan guarantees and grants for producers to purchase and install 
on-the-farm renewable energy systems, establishing a forest bioenergy 
program; and, of course, championed by the chairman of the full 
committee, the biomass crop assistance program.
  I encourage all of my colleagues for these reasons, as pointed out by 
many other colleagues, to support the conference report.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), another outstanding member of 
our committee, for 1 minute.
  Mr. COSTA. I, too, want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking 
member for an effort that has extended now over 2\1/2\ years.
  Mr. Speaker, certainly the measure before us, the Food, Conservation, 
and Energy Act of 2008, reflects a bipartisan compromise and consensus 
not easily gained.
  I represent three of the country's most productive agricultural 
counties in the Nation. In my district alone, farmers grow over 300 
various crops, which oftentimes are referred to as specialty crops, 
fruits, vegetables all sorts of diversified good food in America.
  For the first time the important segment of American agriculture is 
being recognized, not in the form of subsidies, but in support of 
research, competitiveness programs, focusing on pest and disease 
prevention efforts. Not only does this help our growers, but it helps 
our consumers to ensure availability of safe, healthy fruits and 
vegetables for our citizens, a diet that's based upon good science.
  Our farmers are working hard to implement better environmental 
stewardship programs, but they face continued challenges as it relates 
to air quality concerns and water shortages. This makes improvements in 
those areas as well.
  Is this bill perfect? Certainly not, but it represents a hard-fought 
compromise.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been said about whether or not there is reform 
in the legislation.

[[Page 9076]]

  Let me point out that there is very substantial reform. We have caps 
on adjusted gross income limits on farmers and on nonfarmers. We 
require direct attribution of benefits. We reform the dairy and sugar 
support programs. We create revenue-based countercyclical programs. We 
address the beneficial interest problem. We reform the crop insurance 
program, and we eliminate the three-entity rule.
  Those of you who are not in agriculture may wonder what some of those 
things are. They are all significant reforms resulting in this. For 
those who say we are not making cuts in the commodity programs, this 
orange bar represents payment for commodity programs under the last 3 
years of the so-called Freedom to Farm Act, which some have touted as 
being more reform oriented in agriculture, $24.7 billion a year.
  During the last farm bill, the 2002 to 2007 farm bill, it averages 
$12.1 billion per year. The projected average cost for the current farm 
bill that we are debating right now, $7.6 billion a year, less than 
one-third of what was spent per year under the Freedom to Farm program. 
This is real reform, these are real cuts in the commodity title for 
America's farmers and ranchers.
  This gives you an illustration of what we are talking about, what we 
are debating about. This thing that looks like a pin, this little tiny 
slice of overall total Federal spending, is what goes to commodity 
programs, one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal budget, down from 
three-fourths of 1 percent during the first year of the 2002 farm bill.
  You might say we are dancing on the head of a pin when we have this 
much debate about reform for one-fourth of 1 percent of the farm 
programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this reform legislation.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, in my very short time remaining, let me 
simply say that we have a huge problem with entitlements in this 
country, one of which is the entitlement, direct payment system for 
farmers. This is not serious reform, when you are still paying farmers 
that make up to $2.5 million in subsidies from the taxpayer.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Virginia, he 
really is an expert on these programs, but he knows as well as anyone 
the reason commodity spending is down is because commodity prices are 
up.
  Two of the three subsidy programs are based on the amount farmers are 
getting in the marketplace. But that can all return in a heartbeat, and 
he knows it.
  The fact is that you need a few Members of Congress here today to 
stand up and say the emperor has no clothes. As I said from the 
beginning, where's the beef, where's the real reform?
  When you still allow taxpayer subsidies going to a farm couple with 
an adjusted gross of $2.5 million, that's not reform. When you lift the 
income limits under the LDP and the countercyclical program, that's not 
reform. When you increased the loan rate and the target price, it's not 
reform.
  You have marginal reform with the crop insurance. Instead of having a 
farm bill today that has reasonable reform for taxpayers throughout the 
country, and has the great conservation title for the 21st century, or 
the healthy food bill of the 21st century, it's more status quo. It's 
more wait for 5 years, we will do it then.
  Well, those 5 years never come. The time has never been better today, 
and the President is right. We should not be spending taxpayer 
subsidies for wealthy individuals at a time of record prices in the 
marketplace. When people are facing increased food and fuel costs, let 
us not do this to the American taxpayer and use their money needlessly.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We can do better. I know we 
can do better in producing a bill that provides a safety net for family 
farmers but is also responsible to the American taxpayer.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding 
and certainly appreciate his work and the chairman's very, very 
diligent work on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the 2007 farm bill. 
This bipartisan legislation will ensure a secure food supply and the 
continuance of a strong agricultural sector. A very important part of 
that agricultural sector in my district, actually, is the production of 
sugar beets, which is helped greatly by this bill.

                              {time}  1515

  The increase in sugar loan rates, the first since 1985, is widely 
supported by Michigan farmers.
  Also including sugar producers in the development of alternative 
energies I think is very important and can help to make them an 
integral part of developing energy resources that will only help 
consumers and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
  While the sugar program faces some criticism, which we have all heard 
on the floor today, I think it is important that Members be reminded 
that this program comes at little or no cost to the taxpayers.
  As well, our specialty crop farmers will also be protected in this 
bill while ensuring that the wealthiest farmers are not receiving 
government subsidies.
  I don't believe anyone understands more about how to strengthen our 
agricultural sector than farmers themselves, so I certainly listened, 
as I am sure all Members did, to our local farmers while this bill was 
being negotiated and I sought their input and their counsel, and I am 
glad that much of what they stated was needed was included in this 
legislation and they strongly support this final product.
  I believe this bill is a great example of bipartisan compromise, and 
I also believe it is good for the future of American agriculture and 
thereby our entire Nation. I would urge my colleagues to support this 
critical legislation.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize 
for 1 minute the distinguished Speaker of the House without whose 
support and backing we wouldn't be here today. From the start when she 
came to Farm Fest a couple years ago until now, she has become an 
agriculture expert. We appreciate her involvement.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to congratulate the distinguished chairman of our Agriculture 
Committee for his important work in bringing this legislation to the 
floor today. I also want to commend Mr. Goodlatte for his leadership as 
well, so we can come to the floor with bipartisan legislation that will 
help lower food prices, invest in energy independence, support 
conservation, and recognize the importance of specialty crops.
  I want to commend Mr. Kind also for his leadership. It is very 
important for us to reform the farm subsidy programs in our country. I 
think where we have a disagreement is I think this bill is a good first 
step in that direction. I don't think we will ever see another bill 
that will look this way. And when we come to the place where our 
situation is addressed again in a bipartisan way on the next farm bill, 
I think your work will be repaid. But I hope, Mr. Kind, that you take 
some satisfaction in the fact that from your leadership and advocacy, 
this farm bill is moving in the right direction. I too am not satisfied 
that it does enough in terms of farm subsidies, but I want to talk 
about what it does do.
  And what it does do is much better because of the leadership of Mr. 
Goodlatte, our distinguished chairman Mr. Peterson, the work of the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who just did a phenomenal job. 
Chairman Rangel did a phenomenal job on his aspect of the bill. And Mr. 
Pomeroy, who serves on both the Ways and Means Committee and the 
Agriculture Committee, was a wonderful bridge in terms of these 
initiatives. I also commend Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin for her 
leadership, and all of our colleagues who are here today, including Mr. 
Holden who is number two on the Ag Committee. All across America, we 
are proud of the work that has been done.

[[Page 9077]]

  In California, we are proud of the work of Dennis Cardoza, a member 
of the Ag Committee, representing some new ideas about fresh fruits and 
vegetables and how they should be part of this initiative. We on the 
coast, to my colleague Mr. Scott, we wanted to see some initiatives 
about fresh fruits and vegetables and specialty crops, and they are 
contained in here. And I commend Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for her 
incredible work on the nutrition piece of this.
  As part of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Baca was a leader in terms 
of the nutrition piece, and Congresswoman DeLauro as Chair of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture was an important voice and 
strong leader and advocate for increasing the nutrition initiatives in 
this legislation. If there was one reason for Members to vote for this 
bill, it would be to support the nutrition piece of it, but there are 
other reasons as well.
  I talked about how it could lower grocery prices. Time magazine 
recently had this on its Web site, four ways the farm bill could lower 
grocery bills. First with the disaster relief, a $3.8 billion program 
for farmers hit by drought and flooding could speed up compensation, 
allowing them to bring crops to market faster.
  Cuts in ethanol subsidies. Demand for corn-based ethanol has 
increased corn prices. This bill cuts the producers' tax credit and 
creates a subsidy for more efficient cellulosic ethanol made from 
stalks, grass, and wood rather than from corn.
  Food stamps. Payments to those on assistance will be more responsive 
to inflation. The minimum monthly benefit will increase from $10, where 
it has been since 1977, and may I say, probably since they put this 
out.
  The final bill has strong support for the food pantries, food banks 
throughout America. Now if you go to a food bank, you will see a sign 
that says you can only come one time a month to pick up food because 
the shelves are bare in those food pantries. This bill will go a long 
way to filling those shelves. So for emergency food assistance, this 
program would supply food banks and pantries and could add up to $100 
million more in funding per year as more Americans affected by the 
sluggish economy visit its distribution centers.
  Some people in our country are concerned as our economy is in a 
downturn, they are concerned about losing their jobs. Many people are 
concerned about losing their homes; but almost everyone is concerned 
about losing his or her living standard. The purchasing power of 
middle-income families has been reduced while costs have gone up for 
necessities like gasoline and groceries and health care and education. 
The issue of gasoline and groceries are addressed somewhat, one more 
than the other, in this legislation.
  In terms of energy, high energy costs are a contributing factor to 
our high food prices, which is why the Food and Energy Security Act, 
which this is, will help reduce gas prices and ensure that America's 
family farmers fuel America's energy independence. Think of this. We 
are talking about energy independence, and with this legislation we 
take a step for America's farmers to fuel America's energy 
independence, following up on the work we did last year in the energy 
bill.
  It makes a $1 billion investment in energy independence. In addition 
to that, it takes a critical step in transitioning from biofuels, from 
corn as I mentioned, and creates a new tax credit that will provide a 
$400 million investment in cellulosic biofuels. These efforts will 
ensure that we send our energy dollars to the Midwest instead of to the 
Middle East.
  In terms of conservation, the bill recognizes that those who work the 
land, America's farmers and ranchers, are great stewards of the land. 
The farm bill improves access to and funding for initiatives that take 
environmentally sensitive lands out of production. It encourages 
environmentally friendly practices on working lands, and it invests 
$5.4 billion to preserve farm and ranchland, improve our air quality, 
our water quality, and enhance soil conservation and wildlife habitats 
on working lands.
  Others have mentioned the issue of specialty crops. For the first 
time, the farm bill makes an historic investment in specialty crops, 
especially important to my State of California, and as I have said, 
those of us living on the coast as well as in the rest of America. It 
provides $1.3 billion in mandatory spending. This investment was made 
possible by the leadership of Congressman Dennis Cardoza of California 
who has worked to ensure that the producers who account for more than 
half of all crop value in the United States are now represented in our 
farm policy. Producers who provide one-half of all crop value in the 
United States are now represented in our farm bill.
  Specifically this bill invested $365 million in specialty crop block 
grants, $230 million to create a new dedicated research program for 
specialty crops, $377 million to create a new initiative for early 
detection prevention and eradication of emerging pest and disease. I 
know that Mr. Thompson of California has a special interest in this 
aspect of the legislation.
  The bill takes a critical step toward reforming farm programs, not 
enough I agree, Mr. Kind, by eliminating payments to the ultra-rich and 
closing loopholes that for decades have allowed some to evade farm-
payment limits. This is the most significant reform in farm policy in 
more than 30 years. This Food and Energy Security Act will ensure that 
future farm bills will never again look like this.
  Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Peterson and many others who have 
made this historic investment in energy independence and nutrition 
assistance, this bill's effects will also be felt far from farm 
country. As George Washington our first President whom we visit every 
day when we come to the Chamber said, ``I know of no pursuit in which 
more real and important services can be rendered to any country than by 
improving its agriculture.'' Well, we were an agrarian society then, 
but there is still a great deal of truth in that statement today.
  With this legislation we will help families facing high food prices; 
fuel our Nation's energy needs with American-made, renewable energy; 
and be better stewards of the land and protect our environment. In 
addition to all of that, we will have fresh snacks, fresh fruit and 
vegetable snacks for our children in the schools.
  I urge my colleagues to support this new direction in American farm 
policy. I urge an ``aye'' vote. Again, I salute Mr. Peterson and Mr. 
Goodlatte for their leadership. It is wonderful for us to have this 
bipartisanship on the floor today.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give one of my 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Speaker just mentioned the bipartisanship in this 
legislation, and that is very true. But this legislation is not 
bipartisan because many Republicans will be supporting a Democratic 
bill, this legislation is bipartisan because it was crafted by both 
Republicans and Democrats throughout the conference process, and this 
legislation is very, very different than the legislation that passed 
the House last summer which I voted against primarily because there 
were tax increases to pay for the legislation. There are no more tax 
increases paying for this legislation. In fact, this legislation is 
paid for by a means that is acceptable to both sides and acceptable to 
the administration.
  But there are more reforms in this legislation that Republicans 
prevailed upon our Democratic colleagues on in the conference. The 
effort to prohibit States, most particularly the State of Indiana, from 
being able to seek outside help to reform their flawed food stamp 
program was removed from this bill, and so now not just Indiana but all

[[Page 9078]]

50 States will be able to continue to use appropriate means to 
modernize their food stamp programs.
  Davis-Bacon provisions in the Northern Border Economic Development 
Commission, the Southeast Crescent, and the Southwest Border Regional 
Commissions, those Davis-Bacon provisions have been removed from this 
legislation.
  An effort to undermine the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 by providing 
increased food stamp benefits to adults, able-bodied adults without 
dependents was removed from this legislation.
  And anticompetition livestock provisions, which were very troubling 
to many Members on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the 
aisle as well, were removed.
  So while there are certainly advocates for each of those provisions 
in this bill, this bill is bipartisan because we worked together to 
give on both sides to make sure that we came up with a good farm bill 
that could command strong bipartisan support.

                              {time}  1530

  This bill promotes energy independence by expanding investment in 
cellulosic biofuels and helping move away from corn-based ethanol. It 
cuts the ethanol subsidy by 12 percent. It's fiscally responsible 
because it contains no tax increases and is PAYGO compliant. It boosts 
conservation programs benefiting our environment. It aids food banks 
and nutrition in our schools in its nutrition programs. It preserves 
the farm safety net and assures that we continue to have the safest, 
most affordable, most abundant food supply in the world. This is real 
reform. This is a real farm bill for the 21st century.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.
  I want to thank, again, the chairman of the committee, the chairmen 
of the subcommittees, the ranking members on my side of the aisle, but 
most importantly, the staff on both the majority and the minority side 
who worked many, many, many weekends over the last 2\1/2\ years, but 
particularly in the last few months, to craft this legislation, to 
address all of the concerns that were raised, to go down blind alleys, 
find that something didn't work, come back up, find a different way to 
make it work, and to reach this point today, the staff has helped make 
that possible.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to echo Mr. Goodlatte's comments. I have a list 
of all of the staff members, majority and minority, that I would like 
entered into the Record to honor their work. You think we've been 
through a process here. It's nothing compared to what the staff has 
done, and so they deserve our thanks. And they're going to, hopefully, 
get a little bit of rest now once we get this over with.
  To follow on Mr. Goodlatte's comments, there's a lot of reform in 
this bill that I would call real reform, as opposed to ginned-up reform 
that's been done by different folks. We have made huge changes in the 
conservation programs that are going to make those programs work a lot 
better in the future, work for more different parts of the country.
  We have a new revenue-based countercyclical program that we're going 
to try out on an optional basis for the next 5 years that may be the 
new future direction of the farm bill, depending on how it works out. 
So we've got a lot of reforms in this bill that never get talked about 
because all anybody wants to focus on is AGI.
  Well, I don't have any problem putting an AGI limit on nonfarmers, 
because, frankly, I don't think they should be in farming in the first 
place. We've got enough capital in agriculture. We don't need folks 
from outside of agriculture coming in and being involved. That's my 
personal opinion.
  But, you know, we've got a $500,000 limit. We'd have gone lower, but 
that's as far as we could get.
  We put a limit on farmers, on farm income for the first time, in 
spite of the fact that this is the only part of business people in this 
country that are getting benefits from the Federal Government that are 
requiring an AGI, that I know of. I don't know why farmers get singled 
out and nobody else does, why we don't have an AGI on oil companies and 
whoever else is getting benefits from the Federal Government. That 
continues to mystify me.
  But I just have to clarify, you know, people keep manipulating these 
statistics. We've fixed some of that in this bill as well, which I 
would call reform. But as to what Mr. Goodlatte said earlier, we have a 
$500,000 hard cap on nonfarm income. So I suppose that if you earn 
$500,000 as a doctor or something, your wife earned $500,000 as a 
doctor, and then you had a farm and you earned $750,000 as a farmer, 
and your wife had a real farm and earned $750,000 you could get to $2.5 
million. But I think you need to understand that, in order for you to 
qualify for that, you're going to have a real genuine farm, and it has 
to be your income, certified by a CPA or a lawyer, and if it's not, if 
they do it wrong they're going to go to jail and you are, too.
  So I think the likelihood of anybody getting to this $2.5 million 
limit is almost nonexistent. That is a bogus argument that's being put 
out there, being ginned up by people that want to keep this fight going 
on.
  So if you want to put a $200,000 cap on everybody that gets money 
from the Federal Government on AGI, then we'll be right there with you. 
But I don't think that's going to happen.
  Just like we tried to put AGI limits on conservation. We had a 
revolt. Some of these conservation groups that have been pushing these 
payment limits, as soon as we said we're going to have the same limit 
on them as farmers, we had a revolt.
  This is a good bill. It's got a lot of reform. I thank everybody. 
We'll appreciate a good vote to get this over with.

       Majority Staff: Andy Baker, Christy Birdsong, Wynn Bott, 
     Aleta Botts, Claiborn Crain, Jack Danielson, Nona Darrell, 
     Adam Durand, Nathan Fretz, Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias, Chandler 
     Goule, Tony Jackson, Craig Jagger, Tyler Jameson, Keith 
     Jones, Martha Josephson, John Konya, Scott Kuschmider, Rob 
     Larew, Merrick Munday, Clark Ogilvie, John Riley, Sharon 
     Rusnak, Lisa Shelton, Anne Simmons, April Slayton, Cherie 
     Slayton, Debbie Smith, Kristin Sosanie, and Jamie Weyer.
       Minority Staff: Patricia Barr, Brent Blevins, Bryan 
     Dierlam, Mike Dunlap, John Goldberg, Alise Kowalski, Kevin 
     Kramp, Scott Martin, Josh Maxwell, Pam Miller, Rita Neznek, 
     Bill O'Conner, Pelham Straughn, and Pete Thomson.
       Fellow/Intern: Rob McAfee, Rachel Huhn, Randi Hughes, 
     Jennifer Spraberry, Olivia Vickers, Melinda Cep, and J.D. 
     Hale.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2419, 
the 2008 Farm Bill Conference Report. This bill provides a breakthrough 
for the Chesapeake Bay by providing an unprecedented level of funding 
to aid in the cleanup of this national treasure. H.R. 2419 provides, 
for the first time, a bay specific program to ensure that farmers in 
the watershed will get their fair share of conservation funding. The 
Conference Report provides $188 million, over 5 years, in bay-specific 
conservation funding. Moreover, the bill includes a baseline of funding 
in the amount of $438 million over 10 years. This will enable the 
program to be extended at the expiration of this 5-year bill. 
Additionally, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation estimates that farmers in 
the bay watershed will be eligible for an additional $252 million in 
national program funding in working land programs in addition to 
conservation set-aside programs. This funding will be over and above 
the annual conservation funding in the last year of the previous farm 
bill that provided $80 million to the Bay watershed.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Collin 
Peterson, and the chairman of the Conservation Subcommittee, Tim 
Holden, for the programs and funding that they have provided to assist 
farmers in controlling sediment and nutrient runoff into the Chesapeake 
Bay. Moreover, the program would not have been possible without the 
support of the many Members of Congress on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
Taskforce. In addition, the work of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, in 
providing technical assistance and grass roots support, was essential 
to the success of the establishment of this program. The Chesapeake Bay 
Commission also provided assistance in the crafting of an initial 
legislation, CHESSEA, that helped galvanize the support of Members who 
are committed to restoring the health of the Bay.

[[Page 9079]]

  The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the U.S. Its watershed 
includes 66,000 farms with an estimated 8.5 million acres of land. The 
watershed contains 150 tributary streams and rivers. The watershed 
spans 6 States and the District of Columbia. Almost half of the 
nitrogen and phosphorus pollutant load in the bay is caused by 
agricultural runoff--from fertilizer and animal waste.
  In 1987 there was the first attempt to clean up the bay with an 
agreement between the States and the Federal Government. The goal was 
to clean up the bay by 2000. When the deadline passed, a more detailed 
agreement was developed and the leaders of Maryland, Virginia, 
Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and the EPA pledged to fix the 
bay's water, its oyster population, its beds of underwater grass, and 
other environmental indicators by 2010--which will require the 
reduction of 110 million pounds of pollution.
  Every environmental assessment indicates that the 2010 deadline will 
not be met and that the environmental condition of the bay is 
continuing to deteriorate. A recent report by the Chesapeake Bay 
Program's Health and Restoration Assessment found that most of the 
bay's waters are degraded, the bay's critical habitats, like grasses, 
are at risk and that many of the bay's blue crabs, striped bass and 
oyster populations are below historic levels. This bill provides the 
much needed resources to restore the Chesapeake Bay to its original 
vitality.


                         national conservation

  In addition to the conservation funding for the bay, this bill boosts 
conservation programs by $7.9 billion, to nationally reduce soil 
erosion, enhance water supplies, improve water and air quality, 
increase wildlife habitat and reduce damage caused by floods and other 
natural disasters. Moreover, fruit and vegetable producers will have 
their own place in the farm bill for the first time and will benefit 
from more than $1.3 billion for new programs that support research, 
pest management, and trade promotion to help the industry.


                               nutrition

  Nearly three-fourths of the farm bill before us today, an additional 
$10.4 billion in new spending, goes to nutrition programs that help 38 
million American families afford healthy food. These critical food 
stamp provisions will help about 11 million people by 2012. Households 
with children receive 77 percent of food stamp benefits. Moreover, 
during this time of fiscal austerity for many families in our Nation, 
this bill provides much-needed support to emergency feeding 
organizations, such as food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens, by 
increasing funding for TEFAP by $1.25 billion--with $50 million for 
immediate shortages at food pantries. The farm bill also will assist 
schools in providing healthy snacks to students, with $1 billion for 
free fresh fruits and vegetables. Finally, it provides international 
nutrition assistance by providing $60 million, in addition to the 
existing Food for Peace international aid program, to purchase 
emergency food aid overseas and provides an additional $84 million for 
the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Program for infant, child, and school nutrition programs in 
underdeveloped countries.


                            renewable fuels

  The farm bill we are considering today will assist Congress in 
promoting the development of biofuels from noncorn sources. The 
Renewable Fuels Standard that was part of the 2007 Energy law requires 
that two-thirds of our fuel needs be met by nonfood feedstocks for 
biofuels, such as switchgrass and woodchips. The farm bill takes 
another critical step in transitioning biofuels beyond corn--by 
reducing the current tax credit for corn-based ethanol by 6 cents per 
gallon and creating a new tax credit to promote the production of 
cellulosic biofuels. Moreover, the farm bill invests $1 billion in 
renewable energy, focusing on new technologies and new sources, 
including $320 million in loan guarantees for biorefineries that 
produce advanced biofuels and a new program to encourage the production 
of new biomass for cellulosic ethanol and other energy production, 
helping producers learn how to harvest, store, and transport biomass to 
bioenergy facilities.


                            critical reforms

  The Conferees have made many reforms to commodity subsidies in this 
bill. Commodity programs account for less than 13 percent of the farm 
bill. This bill will reduce the cap for nonfarm income by 80 percent, 
to $500,000, and puts in place the first-ever cap for farm income at 
$750,000 for fixed direct payments. The bill reduces direct farm 
payments by $300 million; the Administration proposed increasing these 
fixed payments by $5.5 billion, even though they are paid out 
regardless of farm prices. The bill also closes a loophole (the three-
entity rule) that for decades has permitted the collection of double 
the farm payment limits by collecting cash on more than one business. 
Moreover, it includes tax reforms to limit the use of farming losses to 
reduce their taxes on nonfarm income.
  I applaud the Conferees for these reforms. Unfortunately, these 
measures do not go far enough. I would have preferred the elimination 
of subsidies to wealthy agri-business interests in their entirety. We 
need to continue to work to reduce the reliance of our farm program on 
commodity supports that often benefit the farmers who need support the 
least.


                               conclusion

  However, the Commodity Title is included in a comprehensive bill that 
contains many good programs, including: the Chesapeake Bay conservation 
provision, as well as significant funding for farm conservation across 
the Nation. Moreover, the robust nutrition program that aids the 
disadvantaged here and abroad, coupled with the recognition of 
specialty crops and the inclusion of the proper incentives to increase 
the production and refinement of renewable fuel from nonfood sources 
are extraordinary advancements that are worthy of support. I believe 
that, on balance, this bill provides many worthwhile benefits which 
prompt me to cast my vote in support of this Conference Agreement.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title in the Conference Report 
for the 2008 Farm Bill is a monumental achievement for the millions of 
Americans who struggle to put enough healthy, nutritious food on the 
table. I know it's not always easy to make ends meet and to put food on 
the table each day. I've walked in those shoes, and I've sat at that 
table. But with this bill we start to fulfill our responsibility to our 
neighbors. We have improved and strengthened food stamps and other 
important nutrition programs for our children and seniors. I want to 
take a few minutes to expand upon some of the accomplishments that are 
in this nutrition title.
  First off, we have updated the name of the program. The new name will 
be SNAP: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We needed a new 
name because there are no places left in this country where food stamps 
actually are ``stamps.'' Instead, like with other modern transactions, 
people swipe their cards at the store to access their benefits. This 
has been a huge success for reducing fraud and stigma in the program. 
We hope and expect that the new name and new image for the program will 
help us to continue to chip away at the stigma that keeps some proud 
people, especially senior citizens, from signing up for help in paying 
for their groceries and puts them at risk of hunger.
  The name reflects the fact that the program provides a ``supplement'' 
to help people afford an adequate diet when their own resources are not 
quite enough. We also say ``nutrition,'' instead of ``food,'' because 
the program is about more than just food. It has got a vibrant 
nutrition education component to help our low-income population learn 
about healthy diets and make the choices that will improve their health 
status over their lifetimes. So I'm very proud of this new name for 
food stamps: an established program that is one of the best Government 
programs we've got. Let me be clear, however, that in changing the name 
and eliminating food stamp coupons we did not intend to make any other 
policy changes to the program.
  I think the biggest single accomplishment in the nutrition title is 
to end the decades of erosion in the value of food stamp benefits. 
We're all aware of the rising gas and food prices of recent months and 
the bite they've taken out of the pocketbooks of most Americans. But 
for many low-income Americans the squeeze has been getting tighter for 
decades, as the value of their food stamps has been able to purchase 
less and less food with each passing year. Food stamp benefits average 
only $1 per person per day. It's not easy to purchase a healthy, 
nutritious diet on such a limited amount.
  So in this bill we have addressed this problem. We made critical 
improvements, and, for the first time in the program's history, we have 
ensured that, in every aspect, the food stamp program keeps its 
purchasing power over time. We raise the standard deduction from $134 
to $144 and index it for inflation. That is an important 
accomplishment. It helps about 10 million people afford more food--
families, seniors, people with disabilities--all types of low-income 
food stamp recipients are helped by this change. We raise the minimum 
benefit, and index it for inflation. We uncap the dependent care 
deduction so that families can deduct the full cost of the child care 
they so desperately depend on to hold down their jobs. And we index the 
asset limits. We don't know what the future will hold. Hopefully, the 
high inflation of the past months will shortly subside as the country 
gets back on track. But we now can rest assured, as never before,


[[Page 9080]]


that if there is substantial inflation our low-income families and 
senior citizens won't lose out on food.
  For me what this bill really is about is people. It's about our 
senior citizens who have worked hard their whole lives and deserve 
better than to face the fear of hunger in their last years. It's about 
children, who come home from school and look to their parents to put a 
nutritious meal on the table.
  One of the groups that will be most helped are our Nation's senior 
citizens. We were able to increase the minimum benefit, which goes 
predominantly to senior citizens, from $10 to about $14 a month. This 
is the first increase in almost 30 years in the minimum benefit. I 
would have liked to have increased it even more, but this change will 
help make it worthwhile for some of our seniors who qualify for a low 
benefit to participate in the program. We did this by setting the 
minimum benefit at 8 percent of the thrifty food plan for a single 
person. Because USDA adjusts the thrifty food plan every year for 
increases in food prices, so too will the minimum benefit now adjust. 
In addition, because of higher food prices in some places, like Alaska, 
Hawaii, and some of the territories, seniors in these places will now 
also see a modestly higher minimum benefit. For example in some parts 
of Alaska, the minimum benefit will be as high as $25 per month.
  In this bill we've also excluded retirement accounts from assets and 
indexed the asset limits to inflation. These changes will help seniors 
and working families to save for the future. It makes no sense to 
require people who fall on hard times to virtually liquidate all of the 
savings they've managed to put away in order to get help paying for 
groceries for themselves and their families. Our seniors, especially, 
may have no ability to replace these savings, and as a result, no 
cushion to deal with unexpected expenses. And a working family who is 
forced to spend down savings now will be that much closer to poverty in 
their older years. So this is an important change for the long-term 
ability of low-income individuals to move toward financial independence 
and for our senior citizens to be able to retain an ability to support 
themselves in their retirement.
  But I also want to reaffirm that we did not take away, as President 
Bush proposed, the State option in the food stamp program to design a 
more appropriate asset test at the State level. In my home State of 
California the legislature and Governor have been working together to 
design an ``expanded categorical eligibility'' program that will revise 
the asset limit for many food stamp recipients and make it easier for 
them to save for the future. I hope that other States consider this 
option, and I urge USDA to work with other States to promote this 
important policy.
  In another major improvement for senior citizens, we have expanded to 
seniors a State option from the 2002 farm bill that dramatically 
reduces paperwork requirements. This policy is known as ``simplified 
reporting'' and it will allow seniors to participate without filing 
paperwork for 12-month periods, unless they have a major increase in 
their income that makes them ineligible for food stamps. I urge USDA to 
make this option as simple and streamlined for seniors and States as 
possible, and to find ways to insulate food stamp benefits from 
interactions with other programs that low-income seniors participate 
in, particularly Medicaid.
  Finally, we have heard reports that despite the overwhelming success 
of the electronic benefits, some seniors can find the technology 
confusing. For those at the minimum benefit who receive maybe only $10 
to $20 a month, we've heard concerns that if they don't use their 
benefits fast enough those benefits can be taken away--or moved 
``offline''--sometimes in as short a period as 3 months, with the 
senior citizen not understanding why this has occurred. I don't think 
this is a very common problem, but it is understandable that a senior 
citizen might want to store up small benefits to use at one shopping 
trip every few months, rather than have to keep track of the card every 
month. This bill allows States to move benefits off-line after 6 months 
of inactivity, but requires them to notify the household and restore 
the benefits within 48 hours upon request. This benefit reinstatement 
should be a simple process, and States should aim to help seniors 
navigate it, so we don't have our seniors being bounced around an EBT 
call center trying to figure out what happened to their food stamp 
benefits.
  For children and families, the biggest change we make is the increase 
and indexing of the standard deduction which will significantly boost 
the ability of low-wage workers to afford food for their families, 
especially over time. More than $5 billion of the nutrition title's 10-
year investment go to this change, which primarily benefits families 
with children.
  We also lift the limit on the dependent care deduction. This change 
will help about 100,000 families who pay out-of-pocket child care costs 
above $175 per child per month, or $200 for infants, by recognizing 
that money that is needed to pay for child care so that a parent can 
work is not available to purchase food. On average, families who are 
helped will receive an additional $40 a month, or $500 a year, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office. The dependent care cap 
has not been raised since the early 1990s, despite the increases in the 
costs of safe, reliable child care. Families incur all types of costs 
in order to secure child care for their children, and USDA should 
continue to allow all of these expenses to count toward the deduction--
such as transportation costs to and from day care and the cost of 
informal care. Finally, as States roll this out to the 100,000 families 
currently on the program, it is important that they make it easy for 
eligible families to claim the new deduction. Families shouldn't have 
to make extra trips to the food stamp office or be at risk of losing 
benefits if they fail to claim a new higher deduction. A household 
should never have its benefits cut or reduced because of a failure to 
document child care expenses, but should be given a full opportunity to 
receive the higher deduction if they have expenses above the current 
capped amounts.
  We hear all the time that despite the importance and success of the 
food stamp program, for most families the benefits run out before the 
end of the month. That is why it is so important that we provide more 
than $1.2 billion in this farm bill for additional food purchases for 
emergency food organizations, like church food pantries and soup 
kitchens, to feed our families and seniors. We provide $50 million in 
additional funds this year to help meet food banks' needs in light of 
rising food costs. And, we increase the basic Emergency Food Assistance 
Program annual funding level to $250 million. That amount will be 
adjusted for inflation in future years to ensure that this program does 
not lose any of its food purchasing power.
  Another important provision for our children is a provision that 
ensures that children who receive food stamps can automatically, or 
``directly'' be certified as eligible for free meals. The eligibility 
rules for the two programs overlap: Virtually every child who receives 
food stamps is eligible for free meals. So making that connection in an 
automated way can save the family from falling through the cracks or 
from having to file duplicative paperwork. Unfortunately, too many 
States and schools don't currently make the connection adequately. So 
this bill requires USDA to report to Congress annually on each State's 
progress in directly certifying food stamp recipients for free school 
meals, and asks for USDA to report on best practices among the various 
States and school districts. This is a provision that is about good 
Government--there is no reason the Government can't make these 
connections, instead of requiring school administrators and families to 
be responsible for duplicative paperwork.
  In addition to my role as Agriculture's Sub-committee Chair on 
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, I also have the great 
pleasure to assess this bill from the perspective of my role as the 
chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. More than 5 million 
Latinos, or more than 10 percent of the Latino population, receive food 
stamps each month. Food stamps constitute 25 percent of total monthly 
income for a typical Latino family that participates in the Food Stamp 
Program. All of the changes that I have just described will benefit 
low-income Latinos who rely upon this program.
  I must take one moment to express my deep personal disappointment 
that we were not able to restore food stamp benefits to all legal 
immigrants who are currently ineligible for the program. Keeping food 
assistance from hard-working immigrants with whom we live side by side 
is simply wrong and I will not stop fighting until we fully repeal the 
benefit cuts to legal immigrants enacted in 1996.
  In spite of this major setback, we have achieved a number of 
important improvements for the Latino community. First, USDA will 
conduct a study on the possibility of bringing the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico back into the national Food Stamp Program. Since 1982 
Puerto Rico has received a fixed block grant amount for food 
assistance, rather than be a part of the U.S. program like the 50 
States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. This 
block grant does not take into account changes in economic or 
demographic conditions, such as unemployment or the number of people 
who are in need of food assistance.
  The poverty rate in Puerto Rico, 45 percent, is more than three times 
the national poverty rate. However, because of the block grant, Puerto 
Rico cannot afford to provide benefits

[[Page 9081]]

to all households poor enough to qualify for benefits using Food Stamp 
Program standards. Instead, they have been forced to impose rigid 
eligibility criteria. For example, a family of four with net income 
above about $600 a month, or 34 percent of the Federal poverty level, 
cannot get any food assistance in Puerto Rico. The same family living 
in California, or any other State on the mainland, could have almost 
three times as much income and still be eligible for food assistance. 
An elderly person living alone faces an income limit of $192 per 
month--just 23 percent of the poverty level.
  Clearly, some of our most vulnerable American citizens are at risk of 
being denied food assistance they greatly need. It seems just plain 
wrong to knowingly leave some Americans with insufficient food. With 
this study we hope to get a better understanding of what the local 
conditions are in Puerto Rico, in terms of food costs, poverty and 
other programmatic factors so that we can figure out how to address the 
issue in the next farm bill, or earlier if possible.
  Another important achievement of the bill is to ensure that both 
Federal statute and regulations have the full force of law, ensuring 
that clients who do not receive adequate service under these rules and 
standards may bring suit. Recently, a district court in Ohio dismissed 
a case brought against the State to enforce the Department's 
regulations for serving people whose primary language is not English. I 
can't speak to whether the case had any merit, but my colleagues and I 
were surprised and disturbed to learn about the court's dismissal. We 
felt that it was critical to clarify in this bill that it has always 
been Congress's intent that the program's regulations should be fully 
enforceable and fully complied with to the same extent as the statute. 
The farm bill, therefore, clarifies that the Department's rules on 
serving non- and limited-English speaking people have the force of law 
and create rights for households.
  Beyond the issue of bilingual access rules, this legislation makes 
clear that the Department's civil rights regulations are among those 
which have the full force of law and which households have the right to 
enforce. Discrimination is not acceptable in any form or at any point 
in the food stamp certification process. Households should not be 
assisted, or not assisted, approved or denied for any reason other than 
an individual assessment of their need for help or their eligibility by 
the state. I am pleased to be playing a role in making clear that the 
Committee and the Congress wish the program to be administered in 
compliance with the Food Stamp Act and its regulations.
  I'd like to also talk about a somewhat related matter that we did not 
manage to agree to include in this farm bill, much to my 
disappointment. I worked hard to include in the House bill, and 
shepherd through the conference negotiations, a provision that would 
have strengthened the longstanding policy in the food stamp program 
that certification and eligibility decisions should be done by State 
employees, rather than private companies. We would have added to the 
traditional restrictions around merit systems and provided specific 
exceptions for certain activities, such as outreach. In recent years 
the Bush Administration has let two States, Texas and Indiana, 
experiment with using private companies to collect and review food 
stamp applications and conduct the sensitive eligibility interview. In 
my view, these projects are not consistent with current law or good 
sense. These experiments have been disastrous to the States' treasuries 
but, more importantly, to the vulnerable families and senior citizens 
who rely on food stamps and found their applications delayed or 
improperly denied. Some people even had their private, personal 
information shared inappropriately. The activities involved in 
determining eligibility--and ineligibility--for food stamps should be 
public functions and should not be governed by profit motive or a 
company's responsibility to its shareholders.
  While the House voted to include this provision in the Conference 
agreement, the Senate did not because of opposition from the other 
party and a veto threat from President Bush, I regret this outcome and 
I am determined to not drop this issue until we have restored the 
proper balance to food stamp administration.
  But I urge my colleagues to not forget, that separate from this 
``privatization'' issue, in recent years States have been experimenting 
with a wide variety of changes to food stamp policies and practices 
that incorporate new technologies and modern business practices. For 
example, some States are using technology to create new pathways to 
apply for and retain benefits such as food stamps, health insurance, 
and child care, including online applications, online program 
redetermination or recertification, phone interviews, and call centers 
where changes in circumstances can be reported.
  On the one hand, creating ways for families to participate in these 
programs without having to travel to a human service office can expand 
access and save time and money for States and families alike. In fact, 
in this bill we've created a new option for States to accept food stamp 
applications over the telephone. No doubt technology offers numerous 
opportunities for improved customer service and simpler application and 
retention processes.
  On the other hand, if these processes are not well-designed, 
evaluated, and implemented, then families can face new access barriers. 
Moreover, some States are exploring these options at the same time that 
they are reducing human service staffing and closing local welfare 
offices. These steps can create new access barriers for certain groups 
of families and need to be carefully monitored. And I am concerned 
because neither States nor USDA appear to be asking the important 
questions about what has been the effect of these technological changes 
on access for food stamp households, particularly vulnerable 
populations like seniors, people with physical or mental disabilities, 
or people who do not speak English proficiently. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) last year published a report that found 
that USDA has not sufficiently monitored the States' ``modernization'' 
efforts in terms of their effects on program access, payment accuracy, 
or administrative costs.
  So in this bill we have included several provisions to require that 
States that are eager to pursue modernized systems are pausing to ask 
the necessary questions about how to ensure that the new systems are 
designed in such a way that they are effective tools for connecting 
eligible families to benefits. In this bill we require USDA to 
establish standards for when States are making major changes in program 
operations and to monitor the effects on households, especially the 
types of households I just mentioned. I urge USDA to do this in a way 
that yields useful information so that States can refine and improve 
their systems to make them as accessible as possible to all clients.
  Another provision requires States to adequately pilot test new 
computer systems before they go full-scale. This responds to situations 
where States have implemented new computer systems without adequate 
testing. This occurred even though some at USDA knew that there were 
weaknesses in the system and that serious benefit delays and errors 
were likely to occur. We also included a provision the Administration 
suggested to require States, instead of households, to repay any 
overissuances that occur because of one of these preventable major 
systems failures.
  Finally, in light of all of the modernization changes and the 
potential access to sensitive information that new players may have, we 
strengthened the Act's privacy protections to ensure that anyone 
receiving confidential information for appropriate program purposes 
cannot then share that information with a third party. In addition to 
our fears that too many people may have access to private food stamp 
information as a result of new technology, we were also concerned that 
clients have not been able to access their private records. We heard 
about clients in Texas who had their benefits cut off, or who never 
were able to obtain benefits, and could not get access to their case 
records in order to pursue claims against the State. That is 
unacceptable. We also clarified that despite all of the changes in how 
States are storing and maintaining client records, clients can access 
these records in litigation. These changes are not in conflict because 
confidential records would continue to be unavailable to the general 
public and others not having a legitimate reason relating to program 
administration.
  Another concern I have is about two new provisions that would 
disqualify certain people from food stamps for misusing their benefits. 
One relates to situations where a recipient of food stamps 
intentionally uses food stamp benefits to buy a product, like water, 
that is in a disposable container that can be redeemed for cash, then 
discards the product and redeems the container in order to obtain the 
cash deposit. The other new disqualification addresses individuals who 
intentionally purchase food with food stamp benefits in order to resell 
the food for a cash profit. I agree that both of these practices are 
contrary to the purposes of the food stamp program in assisting people 
in obtaining an adequate diet and it's appropriate to address them in 
this bill. However, I caution USDA to implement them in a way that 
ensures that only those who intended to defraud the system in these 
manners be disqualified. I do not want to see innocent people--who may 
simply have bought groceries for a neighbor or relative be caught up as 
somehow engaging in fraud under this provision.

[[Page 9082]]

  My concerns here are not completely without precedent. In this bill 
we are revisiting and clarifying a different disqualification rule that 
was enacted in 1996, and that has, in fact, ensnared innocent people 
and denied food stamp benefits in inappropriate ways. The intent of the 
law was to aid law enforcement and prevent criminals who are fleeing to 
avoid prosecution from receiving food stamps. Unfortunately, in 
practice, the provision has disqualified innocent people who had their 
identities stolen, or who have outstanding warrants for minor 
infractions that are many years old and where the police have no 
interest in apprehending and prosecuting the case.
  So in this bill we direct USDA to clarify that people should only be 
subject to disqualification if they are actively fleeing law 
enforcement authorities who are, in fact, interested in bringing them 
to justice.
  In addition to the very important changes we have made to the food 
stamp program and new funding for food banks through TEFAP, the bill 
would expand and improve the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under 
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. This program has been 
receiving $9 million a year in mandatory funds and operates in 14 
States. (Three Indian tribes also operate the program.)
  Under the conference agreement, mandatory funding would increase to 
$40 million for the 2008-2009 school year and continue to grow. By 
2012, the program would be funded at nearly eight times its current 
size: $150 million each year, with annual adjustments for inflation in 
years after that.
  In addition to providing increased funding, the conference agreement 
takes important steps to target program funds to elementary schools 
with a significant share of low-income children. Our goal is to provide 
free fresh fruits and vegetables to all elementary schools in the 
country where more than half of the children are eligible for free or 
reduced price school meals. This program should expose a whole new 
generation of children to a healthy way of eating.
  To sum up, I am extremely proud of the work that our Committee and 
our Congress have undertaken in the nutrition title of the farm bill. 
With these changes, we are building a healthier better fed population. 
As a result, we are taking a few important steps towards a stronger 
future for our children and our communities.
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
2419, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. This bipartisan piece 
of legislation will better reflect our values, strengthening American 
agriculture to meet the 21st century needs of the United States and the 
world with a safe, stable food supply.
  I want to commend the work of the chairman of the House Committee on 
Agriculture, Colin Peterson, as well as the Senate chairman, Mr. 
Harkin. Both men diligently worked to reconcile the differences in both 
the House and Senate versions of the bill. All of that hard work has 
paid off. This bill will ease the strain of rising food prices for 
millions of families, take a first step on much-needed reforms to farm 
payments, and make a substantial commitment to land conservation and to 
the fruit and vegetable industry.
  Mr. Speaker, while these are important and positive provisions of 
this bill, I am particularly pleased with the nutrition titles of the 
bill. An additional $10.4 billion in new spending will be allocated for 
nutrition programs that help 38 million American families afford 
healthy food. In addition, there are many updates in the food stamp 
programs that reflect the current state of our economy. These critical 
food stamp provisions will help about 11 million people by 2012.
  In particular, the reforms found in this bill benefit those 
individuals who need help. The bill helps these individuals adequately 
cover food expenses and sustains participants in the Food Stamp Program 
for the entire month. It also increases the minimum benefit for food 
stamp recipients, which is especially important for our senior citizens 
in need. I am also particularly proud that the 2008 Farm Bill extends 
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, of which my grandmother, 
the late Representative Julia Carson, was a champion. It is important 
to help the many low-income elderly individuals in need of additional 
assistance who are reluctant to apply for food stamps.
  The legislation also goes far in addressing the health and nutrition 
needs of our children by increasing funding by $1.02 billion for the 
USDA Snack Program. Aiding schools in providing healthy snacks to 
students during after-school activities and expanding the program to 
all 50 States is something that Congress must do.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also in support of the final bill because of its 
provisions addressing ethanol. It goes without saying that ethanol is 
helping to reduce fuel prices at the pump. The prices are almost 15 
percent lower from where they might be if biofuel producers were not 
increasing output. The farm bill also invests $1 billion in renewable 
energy focusing on new technologies and new sources, including $320 
million in loan guarantees for biorefineries that produce advanced 
biofuels and a new program to encourage the production of biomass for 
cellulosic ethanol and other energy production, helping producers learn 
how to harvest, store, and transport biomass to bioenergy facilities.
  I am also highly supportive of the bill's increased funding for the 
Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, by $1.26 billion. I believe 
in providing commodities and other resources to States to help stock 
food banks. It is important that Congress continue to provide much-
needed support to emergency feeding organizations, such as food banks, 
food pantries, and soup kitchens by increasing this funding for TEFAP.
  Mr. Speaker, from increasing conservation programs by $7.9 billion, 
to containing provisions that help us meet global food shortages, this 
is a good bill. The bill is fully paid for and prevents further 
increases to the national debt. It expands food security programs, 
protects our vital natural resources, promotes healthier foods and 
local food networks, and reforms commodity and biofuel programs to 
reflect the priorities of the Nation.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
farm bill conference report. I would like to commend conference 
committee members for tackling the tough issues, offsetting costs, and 
producing a conference report that I can support.
  To be sure, this is not a perfect bill. Yet, in my estimation, no 
amount of negotiation could produce a conference report that all would 
agree is perfect. Rather, what has emerged is a farm bill that is good 
for my home State of Colorado and good for the country.
  For starters, this bill will provide millions of American families 
with access to healthy food. Nearly three-quarters of the bill's cost 
will support nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency 
food assistance programs, as well as an initiative to provide fresh 
fruit and vegetables as healthy snack alternatives for a generation of 
schoolchildren currently battling an epidemic obesity problem.
  This farm bill will help Colorado continue to lead in the development 
of homegrown energy programs that we need to help free us from our 
national addiction to oil and protect our environment. It increases 
investments in renewable energy technologies, while reducing the 
burdensome tax credit for corn-based ethanol and creating a new tax 
credit for the production of more efficient cellulosic biofuels.
  Rural America can plant their fields with confidence, thanks to the 
farm bill's new disaster relief program, and this provision of the bill 
also might significantly lower future grocery bills by speeding up 
compensation for farmers subject to natural disaster and allowing them 
to bring crops to market faster.
  In addition, American consumers will have added confidence knowing 
that this farm bill mandates critical food labeling for our meat 
supply, including country of origin, and improves oversight of USDA's 
enforcement of rules governing meat packers and stockyards.
  Along with promoting safe food and renewable energy production, this 
legislation increases spending for conservation programs by nearly $8 
billion. These programs will help protect agricultural lands from urban 
sprawl; enhance and protect our natural resources; encourage public 
access to private land; and protect sensitive wetlands and grasslands, 
areas that are especially vulnerable in Colorado's eastern plains.
  Of particular interest to Colorado is that the farm bill includes 
provisions similar to those in a bill--H.R. 1182--I introduced dealing 
with the tax treatment of exchanges of mutual ditch stock. Mutual ditch 
companies are unique to Colorado and are organized for the mutual 
benefit of shared water rights rather than for profit. This provision 
allows for tax-free exchanges of shares of these mutual ditch 
companies.
  Another measure included in the farm bill, which I supported during 
consideration in the House Natural Resources Committee, will protect 
domestic timber producers by stopping the flow of illegally logged 
foreign timber imported into the United States.
  This bill will also help bolster America's international standing by 
helping to meet global food shortage demands. America is already the 
world's largest provider of food aid, but recent riots in developing 
nations around the world have shown that we must increase our efforts. 
This legislation will provide additional funding to purchase emergency 
food aid overseas, and reauthorizes the McGovern-Dole

[[Page 9083]]

International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program for 
infant, child and school nutrition programs in underdeveloped 
countries.
  As I said before, this bill is not perfect. I applaud the conference 
committee for trimming subsidies for already wealthy farmers, but I 
would prefer tighter reform of these programs, especially at a time 
when consumers must sacrifice to afford increasing food costs. And any 
legislation of this size and scope--especially when it is developed as 
a compromise between the two Chambers--is likely to include provisions 
that might not deserve to pass on their own.
  Taken in whole, however, the farm bill conference report successfully 
addresses the most important food and agricultural issues facing the 
Nation today, and fully pays for all new spending initiatives. I agree 
with the editorial board of the Denver Post, which wrote, ``this latest 
version of the Farm Bill is good for the entire country,'' and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. At 
this time, I would like to recognize the hard work of the Gentleman 
from Minnesota, Mr. Peterson, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte, and the other conferees that culminated in the conference 
report before the House today. I also would like to take a moment to 
mention several items of interest to my constituents in northern and 
central New York.
  Very simply, I could not overstate the importance of dairy farming to 
the economy of New York's 23rd Congressional District, which I 
represent. In fact, its importance is readily apparent when one 
considers that the 2002 Census of Agriculture reported there were 1,989 
dairy farms with 188,305 milk cows in the 11 counties that comprise the 
district. Accordingly, I am pleased that the conference report extends 
and expands the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, Program, continues the 
Dairy Price Support and Dairy Indemnity Programs, and reauthorizes the 
Dairy Export Incentive Program.
  The conference report also includes a provision to create a Northern 
Border Regional Commission, which I have been working on a bipartisan 
basis with the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Michaud, and others to enact 
because it will help further economic development. There is no question 
this assistance is needed, particularly when one considers that in 
2000, seven of the 11 counties I have the privilege of representing had 
poverty rates in excess of the national rate of 12.4 percent and 
three--Franklin, Oswego and St. Lawrence counties--had poverty rates in 
excess of 14 percent. Similarly, from 2004 to 2006, eight of my 
constituent counties had unemployment rates in excess of the national 
average.
  I was also pleased that the conference report will provide $466 
million for the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, $10 million 
annually for efforts to address colony collapse disorder in honey bees, 
grants and guaranteed loans for broadband development, tax incentives 
for agricultural businesses to enhance chemical security, and at least 
$1.19 billion for the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Finally, the 
conference report increases the amount available for direct loans to 
farmers and authorizes $120 million to fund pending rural 
infrastructure programs of importance to my constituents such as the 
Water and Waste Disposal Grants and the Rural Water and Wastewater 
Circuit Rider Programs.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I commend my good friend and colleague 
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, for his leadership in bringing the Conference Report on 
H.R. 2419, the ``Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,'' to the 
House. His outstanding work and dedication over the past year and a 
half have culminated in this important legislation, which includes 
critical authorizations for farm programs and addresses vital 
nutrition, conservation, and economic development needs across the 
Nation.
  This Conference Report makes great strides in the fight against 
hunger by providing an additional $10.4 billion for nutrition programs, 
which help 35 million low-income families. For the first time in 30 
years, the legislation increases the minimum benefit under the Food 
Stamp Program, which keeps 26 million of our Nation's poorest 
individuals from going hungry, and indexes the benefit amount to 
inflation. The Conference Report also provides an additional $1.3 
billion for the Emergency Food Assistance Program to provide food 
banks, soup kitchens, and other emergency feeding sites with much 
needed resources. The Conference Report also includes $50 million for 
2008, which is available immediately to address food shortages at a 
number of food banks.
  The Conference Report also contains a number of provisions that fall 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, particularly economic and infrastructure development, 
which I strongly support. The House-Senate agreement voted on today 
represents a major step forward in delivering critical economic and 
infrastructure development assistance to the most chronically poor and 
economically distressed regions of the country. The Conference Report 
reauthorizes two existing regional economic development commissions and 
establishes three new regional economic development commissions in 
economically distressed areas of the Nation.
  Section 6026 of the Conference Report reauthorizes the Northern Great 
Plains Regional Authority through fiscal year 2012 and provides $30 
million per year to fully establish this Commission and fulfill the 
mission Congress intended when it was first authorized in FY 2002. The 
counties eligible for assistance under the Northern Great Plains 
Regional Authority, including those in my district, will greatly 
benefit from the grant funds and planning provisions included in the 
Conference Report. Section 6025 reauthorizes the Delta Regional 
Authority, DRA, through FY 2012 at current funding levels of $30 
million per year, and includes 12 additional Louisiana parishes and 
Mississippi counties in the DRA.
  The Conference Report also authorizes three new commissions--the 
Northern Border Regional Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional 
Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional Commission--through FY 
2012, at an authorization level of $30 million per year for each 
Commission. I commend Congressman Hodes, Congressman Michaud, 
Congresswoman Shea-Porter, and other Members representing the Northeast 
region of the United States for their strong support of regional 
economic development and for their persistence in bringing this 
important issue to the attention of Conferees on the farm bill.
  These three Commissions are established under a unified 
administration and management structure as developed in the Regional 
Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246). We 
moved this bill expeditiously through the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure to the House floor, where, on October 4, 2007, it 
passed by a strong vote of 264-154. These administrative and management 
procedures are modeled after the highly successful Appalachian Regional 
Commission, provide for a consistent method for distributing economic 
development funds, and ensure a comprehensive regional approach to 
address problems of systemic poverty in the Nation's most severely 
distressed areas.
  The Conference Report on H.R. 2419 also makes a number of important 
improvements to conservation programs, including increasing investment 
in conservation programs that take environmentally sensitive land out 
of farming and encourage environmentally friendly practices on working 
farmland. Water conservation provisions under the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the final legislation 
include the creation of a new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, which 
provides a commitment of resources from the Department of Agriculture 
to restore, improve, and protect water quality throughout the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed; and reauthorization of the Watershed 
Protection and Flood Prevention Act through 2012.
  I am also pleased that the Conference Report includes a provision 
which I strongly support to assist small logging companies who are 
facing bankruptcy because they are not able to pay off their contracts 
on National Forest System land. The language contained in Section 8401 
gives the Chief of the Forest Service the right to cancel or 
redetermine a qualified timber contract, and will help a number of 
small businesses who are suffering, particularly in light of the 
current housing downturn.
  I am proud to lend my support to this important effort and commend 
Chairman Peterson for his commitment and determination in getting this 
legislation to the President's desk.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the 
Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 and I congratulate the Committee 
on providing a bill that includes needed and critical reforms that 
improve access to food and nutrition, provide more equitable access to 
research funding and renew America's commitment to conservation.
  This bill correctly focuses on the people who need the most help. In 
fact, nearly three-quarters of the bill will be directed to nutrition 
programs that will assist 38 million American families afford healthy 
food. It updates that Food Stamp program and increases funding for food 
banks, food pantries and soup kitchens.

[[Page 9084]]

  I am particularly encouraged that the bill increases agricultural 
research funding for Historically Black Colleges. This is important 
because minority institutions are usually left out when it comes to 
Federal research funding. As an example, I point to a Government 
Accountability Office study conducted in 2003 which indicated that 1890 
Land Grant institutions received less than 2 percent of the competitive 
funding available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This bill 
represents a step in the right direction.
  The bill also provides for mandatory funding of the 2501 Socially 
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Outreach Program. This should help 
to slow the troubling trend of significant land loss by African 
American and other socially disadvantaged producers.
  Additionally, the bill significantly boosts spending for conservation 
programs to reduce soil erosion, enhance water supplies, improve water 
and air quality, increase wildlife habitat and reduce damage caused by 
floods and other natural disasters.
  Of particular interest to my home State of North Carolina, fruit and 
vegetable producers will have their own place in the Farm Bill for the 
first time. The bill includes more than $1.3 billion to support 
research, pest management, trade promotion and nutrition for the 
industry.
  Also of interest to North Carolina, this bill takes another important 
step in moving biofuels beyond focusing on corn. It reduces the current 
tax credit for corn-based ethanol by 6 cents per gallon and creates a 
new tax credit to promote the production of cellulosic biofuels.
  While the Farm Bill may not be perfect, the good far outweighs any 
shortcomings.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2419, the 
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, better known as the Farm 
Bill. This measure, which reauthorizes federal agriculture and 
nutrition programs for five years, reflects Rhode Island's priorities: 
protecting our farmers and surrounding environment and caring for the 
most vulnerable members of our society.
  There has been much discussion about reforming the Farm Bill, 
particularly with regard to how payments are structured to producers of 
certain commodities like cotton, rice and sugar. H.R. 2419 begins this 
process by lowering the annual adjusted gross income of farmers 
eligible for subsidies from $2.5 million to $750,000 and also excludes 
farmers making more than $500,000 from non-farm income. This structure 
will prevent millionaires from receiving farm subsidy benefits, and 
will also make payments transparent. While I believe we should go 
further with reform, I look forward to building on this restructuring 
in future legislation.
  This legislation increases funding by nearly $8 billion for the 
conservation title, which includes programs important to Rhode Island, 
such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the Farm and 
Ranchland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive 
Program. I am also pleased that H.R. 2419 includes funding for 
specialty crops, which will benefit our fruit, vegetable and nursery 
crop farmers. These farmers, who make up a large percentage of Rhode 
Island's farming landscape, will now receive equal assistance and 
access to conservation programs.
  H.R. 2419 includes over $10 billion in increased funding for the 
nutrition title, which includes food stamps and other programs aimed to 
combat hunger and improve nutrition for children, the elderly and low-
income Americans. Unfortunately, these members of our society face a 
stigma when they realize they must turn to the government for 
assistance, and this Farm Bill works to end that by renaming the Food 
Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and 
replacing food stamp coupons with Electronic Benefit Transfer cards. 
This bill also reauthorizes programs such as the Community Food 
Projects program, which awards grants to non-profit groups that 
establish community food projects targeted to low-income individuals, 
and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, which provides 
vouchers for low-income seniors to purchase fruits and vegetables at 
farmers' markets.
  This measure also increases funding for school nutrition programs, 
including the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which will help 
purchase fruits, vegetables and nuts, and create more avenues for 
produce to flow from local farmers to schools. This is especially 
important in Rhode Island, where state lawmakers and local 
organizations have already taken the initiative in improving the eating 
habits of our students. In 2007, 26 of 38 RI school districts 
participated in the Farm to School Program, where produce is purchased 
from local farms. This Farm Bill will help those school districts 
continue in a healthy direction.
  H.R. 2419 also helps northeast dairy farmers, including those in 
Rhode Island, by extending the Milk Income Loss Contract Program, which 
compensates dairy producers when domestic milk prices fall below a 
certain level. Further, this measure encourages the expansion of 
renewable energy research and production, contains a new section for 
horticulture and organic agriculture, and includes funding to make sure 
our food supply is safe and stable.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill; however, this Farm Bill 
helps farmers meet growing environmental challenges, gives consumers 
more healthy food choices, and promotes critical renewable energy 
development. It was also imperative that the Farm Bill take into 
consideration the country's current economic state. This bill will help 
stock food banks across our country by increasing funding to the 
Emergency Food Assistance Program by $1.26 billion. I look forward to 
passing this measure into law.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to a Farm Bill 
Conference Report (H.R. 2419) that will continue our wasteful 
agricultural policy for another five years. It is a rare day indeed 
that I agree with President Bush, but he is absolutely right to have 
issued a veto threat of this bill.
  With farm income and food prices at or near record highs, now is the 
perfect time for reform. Unfortunately, this conference report, while 
masquerading as a reform package, simply tinkers around the edges of 
our bloated agri-business subsidies. Our current ``farm policy'' is 
little more than corporate welfare, with benefits flowing to large 
corporate operations at the expense of small farmers, both here and 
abroad, who actually need help. Under current policy the top 10 percent 
of recipients received 75 percent of all subsidies, while 67 percent of 
farms receive nothing. This is not good for rural communities, small 
farms, or taxpayers.
  At best, this conference report represents ``half a loaf,'' as the 
group Bread for the World has said. The conferees got the nutrition 
title right and I commend them for it. There are important changes to 
the eligibility rules for the food stamps program as well as a raise in 
the minimum benefit. These changes, along with increases in funding for 
emergency food aid will have a real impact on the millions of families 
who are struggling to put food on their tables. If all this bill 
contained were the nutrition title, I would proudly support it. For all 
the conference accomplished on nutrition, they failed in greater 
measure on reforming farm subsidies.
  Proponents of the conference report argue that it represents 
``reform.'' They can't be serious. Under this so-called reform, farmers 
filing jointly could have an adjusted gross income, AGI, of $2.5 
million, or $1 million if their only source of income is farm-related 
and they could still receive subsidies. This amounts to cutting off 
only 0.3 percent of farmers from the dole. The report does nothing to 
means test countercyclical payments. Furthermore, the report creates an 
entirely new $4 billion permanent disaster program that is not only 
wasteful and redundant, but will also encourage pushing marginal and 
environmentally sensitive land into production. This is not reform.
  Real reform would mean eliminating all subsidizes for corn-based 
ethanol, which have driven up food costs around the world. Real reform 
would mean ending direct payments except for farmers who actually need 
assistance. By passing this bill, Congress is missing a golden 
opportunity to enact real reform. We should not wait another five years 
to make our farm policy equitable and responsible. By rejecting the 
conference report we can begin the important work of enacting a fair 
Farm Bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
the Conference Report on H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act of 
2007.
  With the U.S. economy faltering and food prices rising, this 
conference agreement takes critical steps to reduce hunger, ensure that 
healthy foods are included in federal nutrition programs, and meet the 
nutritional needs of many low-income Americans.
  To help low-income families hit especially hard by high food prices, 
this legislation invests more than $7.8 billion in the food stamp 
program, now renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
  This commitment will slow the erosion of food stamp benefits caused 
by increasing food prices, provide food assistance to recipients 
without requiring them to spend down their education savings accounts 
and retirement plan assets, and increase food assistance to households 
with high child care expenses.
  The bill also invests $1.25 billion in commodity purchases for food 
banks, which will strengthen emergency food assistance programs' 
efforts to serve needy families.
  Our nation is facing a growing child obesity epidemic--an issue that 
demands strong efforts to improve the quality and nutritional

[[Page 9085]]

value of foods offered through school meal programs.
  H.R. 2419 includes important provisions that will expand children's 
access to healthy foods during the school day, and that will help 
inform our efforts to reauthorize the nation's child nutrition programs 
next year.
  I am also pleased that this report increases the volume of fresh 
fruits and vegetables available through federally-supported domestic 
nutrition programs, and, as part of that, invests more than one billion 
dollars in expanding the fruit and vegetable snack program.
  Thanks to this significant investment, the snack program, targeted 
primarily to low- income children and to schools that 
disproportionately serve low-income families, will now provide 
thousands of students in every state with greater access to healthy 
foods.
  This bill also supports local food systems and farm-to-school 
programs by encouraging child nutrition programs to use a geographic 
preference when purchasing foods--allowing schools and other programs 
to select more nutritious agricultural products such as fresh fruits 
and vegetables, dairy products, eggs and meat.
  In addition, it will require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
conduct a national survey of the foods purchased by the school lunch 
programs.
  Science and research overwhelmingly tell us that providing our 
children with healthy, nutritious foods from the earliest years on is 
one of the best things we can do to help our children succeed.
  I am very pleased that all of the child nutrition provisions 
throughout this bill retain a focus on providing healthier foods and 
nutritional benefits as supported by scientific research.
  When we last reauthorized the child nutrition programs in 2004, we 
required children in low-income households receiving food stamps to be 
automatically enrolled for free meals at school through a process known 
as ``direct certification.''
  This simplification reduces work for school administrators, 
eliminates a duplicative application process for low-income families, 
and improves the accuracy of the school meal enrollment process.
  We had hoped that school districts, states, and the USDA would do 
everything in their power to make sure that every eligible low-income 
child would benefit from this simplification. Unfortunately, the 
evidence to date indicates that the implementation of this provision 
has been inconsistent.
  The USDA must act more aggressively to help states and school 
districts reach all children who could benefit from this coordination 
of efforts. This bill will ensure that we get information from USDA 
that will allow us to monitor this progress and promote best practices 
through their new annual reports on direct certification.
  While this conference report contains many positive accomplishments, 
I am disappointed that it does not include a proposal from the House-
passed bill that would ensure that public employees conduct eligibility 
determinations for food stamp benefits.
  Without this proposal, the food stamp determination process will now 
be open to for-profit companies, many of which may be more focused on 
boosting efficiency and revenue than serving the best interests of 
vulnerable Americans.
  The House provision would have re-established longstanding and 
productive public-private partnerships that help ensure that the right 
balance of private contractors and public employees are included in 
this process. It is frustrating that this was excluded from what is 
otherwise a very strong conference report.
  By making the right investments to strengthen the quality of foods 
provided to our Nation's children, this bill is a down payment on a 
healthier future for this country.
  I would especially like to thank Chairman Peterson, Congressman 
Goodlatte, and Senators Harkin and Chambliss for their hard work on 
this conference agreement.
  The House Education and Labor Committee is committed to building on 
this effort to improve child nutrition in this country, and to ensure 
that the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast program, 
and the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and 
children (WIC) are available to all eligible children and families.
  I urge the passage of this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Peterson for 
working tirelessly over the past year and a half to craft this farm 
bill--legislation that may not be perfect, but which takes our Nation 
in a new direction in agriculture policy.
  This farm bill makes important reforms in the commodity title, while 
continuing to provide a safety net for our small- and mid-sized 
farmers--farmers like those I represent in southern Maryland.
  The bill tightens payment limits, eliminates loopholes that have been 
exploited to get around those limits, and makes payments transparent by 
requiring direct attribution to a single individual.
  I am proud that this bill takes important steps to ensure that our 
children and those in need will have the resources they need to live 
healthy lives.
  Its nutrition title includes more than $10 billion to better stock 
food banks and pantries, provide healthy snacks to schoolchildren, and 
reform the food stamp program by tying it to inflation.
  It is important to note that this bill also makes record investments 
in conservation, renewable energy, and rural development, which will 
enable our producers to better protect our environment and bolster 
economic development in our rural communities.
  I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes $438 million 
in direct assistance over the next 10 years to help our farmers in 
their ongoing efforts to be good stewards of the Chesapeake Bay.
  While we have been able to make some strides in our efforts to 
restore this magnificent estuary, it is clear that there is much work 
to be done.
  Recently, the University of Maryland Center for Environment Science 
issued a report card which rated the bay's health a C-minus.
  Ironically, this slight improvement over the previous year was 
largely due to drought conditions that limited nutrient and sediment 
runoff into the bay.
  The funds included in this farm bill will help farmers throughout the 
watershed control erosion and reduce sediment and nutrient levels. 
Their efforts will help enhance, restore, and conserve this 
ecologically significant habitat.
  The legislation also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to give 
special consideration to producers in specific, targeted river 
watersheds, including those of the Potomac and the Patuxent.
  Our concerted effort to restore these significant tributaries will go 
a long way to bolstering the health of the great body of water into 
which they all empty--the Chesapeake Bay.
  Finally, I want to express my support for the Enhanced Use Lease 
Authority Pilot Program. This program seeks to create a national model 
at the National Agricultural Library and our Nation's flagship 
agricultural research facility--the Beltsville Agricultural Research 
Center. This program will enable them to partner on-site with public 
and private facilities to enhance the mission of USDA-ARS and address 
much needed facilities upgrades in a timely and efficient fashion.
  Again, I want to congratulate Chairman Peterson on this bill--a farm 
bill that will be noted for putting America's agricultural policy on 
the right track and laying the foundation for more far reaching reforms 
in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, as a representative of rural Missouri, let 
me take this opportunity to share my support for the 2008 farm bill.
  I commend Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for 
producing a balanced and bipartisan bill that would bring a level of 
stability to commodity markets and ensure farmers throughout the United 
States can make long-term business decisions.
  Important to farm families in the Show-Me State, the 2008 farm bill 
would extend the farm program safety net for producers while also 
reforming eligibility requirements and strengthening payment 
limitations for those who receive farm program payments. While I cannot 
overemphasize the importance of having a safety net in place to help 
farmers recoup some expenses associated with agricultural production 
and to ensure they are not put out of business if markets collapse, I 
am pleased that reforms were made to address some concerns of the 
administration and other farm program critics.
  In addition to ensuring a strong safety net, the farm bill would make 
historic commitments to food security and nutrition, expand 
conservation, promote rural development, streamline agricultural 
research, and invest in renewable energy.
  The farm bill would make essential commitments to the health of the 
American people and would help families in need by boosting nutrition 
funding by over $10 billion. In Missouri and elsewhere, food pantries 
are short of food and low-income Americans are having a difficult time 
affording groceries. The legislation would allocate resources to food 
banks, modernize the food stamp program, expand farmers' markets, 
extend food programs for low-income senior citizens and pregnant women, 
promote student health, and fight obesity.

[[Page 9086]]

  The farm bill would expand popular conservation programs designed to 
preserve farmland, improve water quality, and enhance soil 
conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitat. In Missouri, the 
Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program, and the Wetlands Reserve Program, among others, have allowed 
farmers to more easily address conservation problems and comply with 
expensive, but important, environmental regulations.
  By expanding USDA rural development loans and grants, the farm bill 
would foster critical investments in small town America. The measure 
would improve rural Internet broadband access, expand first responder 
and emergency medical services in rural areas, and authorize grants for 
weather radio transmitters to alert rural citizens about coming storms. 
It would also provide grants for drinking water and wastewater 
improvements, foster rural small business development, and provide for 
greater value-added loans and grants for small farmers.
  With respect to research and development, the farm bill would create 
a National Institute of Food and Agriculture within the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, USDA, to maximize coordination throughout USDA's 
research agencies. The bill would also create the Agriculture and Food 
Research Initiative to stimulate business development and access to 
capital in rural America and create the Energy Research Program to 
improve research on the production and sustainability of biofuels, like 
ethanol and biodiesel. Additionally, the bill would address concerns 
raised by livestock producers and others regarding the high cost of 
corn by slightly reducing the corn ethanol producers' tax credit and 
creating a subsidy to accelerate commercialization of advanced 
biofuels, like cellulosic ethanol.
  Also important to Missourians, the farm bill would continue price 
supports for dairy farmers and increase funding for fruit and vegetable 
producers. It also contains the first-ever Livestock Title, which would 
increase market access for small, state-inspected meat processing 
plants, better protect producers who have contracts with livestock 
firms, and better enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. Additionally, 
the legislation would require that all meat sold to American consumers 
have a country-of-origin label. But, importantly, this labeling 
agreement represents a compromise that would simplify record keeping 
and other requirements associated with the law.
  The farm bill would also prohibit the closure or relocation of county 
Farm Service Agency offices for 2 years, would encourage additional 
funding directed to Historically Black Colleges, like Lincoln 
University in Jefferson City, and would establish an Office of Homeland 
Security within USDA to better protect our Nation from terrorist 
attacks aimed at America's agricultural sector.
  The people of Missouri and Americans from all walks of life do well 
by the 2008 farm bill. I am pleased to lend my support to it and hope 
it will pass the House with broad, bipartisan support. I further hope 
that the President of the United States will reconsider his threat to 
veto the farm bill, which would be a disservice to rural Americans and 
to low-income citizens of our Nation who would benefit from the bill's 
commitment to food security.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the nutrition 
title of the pending conference report. It includes many urgently 
needed improvements to our food assistance programs for low-income 
people.
  As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I am particularly 
pleased to see this title includes language to correct a couple of 
problems that have arisen relating to the enforceability of the act and 
to ensure that no further problems exist.
  The Food Stamp Act has long been recognized as fully enforceable on 
behalf of active and prospective participants. This history of 
enforceability is comparable to that of securities regulations, which 
the courts have long accepted. When, many years ago, a panel of the 
Fifth Circuit found no private right of action under the Food Stamp Act 
in a case brought by a pro se plaintiff, several other circuits, and 
ultimately the Fifth Circuit en banc, rejected that conclusion. Had 
they not done so, I have no doubt we would have intervened.
  Recently, a couple of Federal courts cast doubt on this long-held 
principle, one by finding the Department's regulations on bilingual 
service unenforceable and another by forcing plaintiffs to meet the 
high standards for supervisory liability when suing a State to enforce 
the act and regulations against local agencies. I am pleased that this 
legislation overrules both of those decisions.
  More broadly, the legislation recognizes that lawsuits by individual 
households or classes of household to enforce their rights under the 
act and regulations are an important part of the program. There now 
should be no doubt, if there ever was any, that all provisions of the 
act and regulations that help individuals get food assistance, or that 
protect them from burdens in their pursuit of food aid, are intended to 
create enforceable rights, with corrective injunctions or back 
benefits, the latter subject to the limitations in the act, as 
appropriate.
  The act does not require States or the Department only to exercise 
reasonable efforts or to substantially comply with its requirements and 
those in the regulations: it gives each individual a right to be 
treated as the act and rules provide. The act and regulations have an 
unmistakable focus on the benefited class of participants and 
prospective participants, they are written in mandatory, not precatory 
terms, and they are concerned with the treatment of individuals as much 
as they are with aggregate or system-wide performance.
  I cannot imagine how Congress could be any clearer in this regard. I 
anticipate that we will have no further confusion concerning the 
enforceability of the act and regulations.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, because I believe that this legislation 
represents a missed opportunity to modernize the regulation of our 
Nation's futures and securities markets, I am unable to sign this 
conference report.
  Section 13106 of the conference report directs the members of the 
President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Secretary of the 
Treasury, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, 
and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, to 
work to ensure that by September 30, 2009, the SEC and CFTC take action 
under their existing authorities to permit risk-based portfolio 
margining for security options and security futures products. Depending 
on when this bill is approved and signed into law, the agencies would 
have roughly 16 months to achieve this directive. Because the SEC and 
CFTC have a fundamental disagreement over how to proceed, there is no 
guarantee that a legislative directive to reconcile their differences 
will yield a breakthrough in what has become a long-standing turf 
battle between the two agencies over this issue.
  Chairman Frank, Mr. Kanjorski and I proffered a solution to this 
regulatory impasse during conference that would create a clear pathway 
the agencies must follow in order to realize a state-of-the-art 
portfolio-based margining system for customers of broker-dealers. Our 
targeted amendment to the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPA, 
would extend Securities Investor Protection Corporation, SIPC, 
insurance to futures positions held in a portfolio margining account 
under an SEC-approved program, thereby significantly advancing the goal 
of risk-based portfolio margining.
  Our amendment is consistent with recent recommendations by the 
Treasury Department in its Blueprint for a Modernized Financial 
Regulatory Structure, which found that ``the realities of the current 
marketplace have significantly diminished the original reason for the 
regulatory bifurcation between the futures and securities markets.'' As 
Treasury has recognized, there are many policy issues--portfolio 
margining included--where a lack of action has placed U.S. markets at a 
competitive disadvantage to other markets that do not draw the same 
artificial distinctions between securities and futures products.
  Portfolio margining recognizes the risk-reducing effects of 
offsetting or hedged positions in calculating customer margin. Thus, a 
portfolio margin system should align a customer's total margin 
requirement, the amount of money they have to put up in order to fund 
their investment positions, with the actual risk the customer is 
taking.
  Today, the portfolio margin rules already allow futures positions on 
broad-based securities indexes such as the S&P 500 to be used to hedge 
offsetting securities positions such as options and exchange traded 
funds on the same index. There is uncertainty about how these existing 
portfolio margin rules fit within the regime that protects investors in 
the event of the liquidation of their broker-dealer. SIPA governs such 
liquidations, which specifically excludes futures from the definition 
of a ``security.'' Single stock securities futures are not excluded as 
they are both futures and securities.
  Consequently, if a broker-dealer carrying portfolio margin accounts 
failed, its customers' net equity claims would not include the value of 
futures positions in a portfolio margin account. This could result in 
situations where gains in the futures positions are not allowed to 
offset losses in the securities positions, thereby reducing the 
protection the customer would be entitled to under SIPA. It also would 
create severe operational challenges as the customers' futures 
positions would need to be unwound separately from the offsetting 
securities positions.
  Some have argued that the Financial Services Committee's approach to 
solving this

[[Page 9087]]

problem would somehow prejudice the so-called ``one-pot/two-pot'' 
debate over whether futures should be allowed to be kept in a 
securities account. It does not. Allowing futures into a securities 
account would still require action by the CFTC. Our language would 
simply provide uniform investor protection in the event of a 
liquidation of a broker-dealer with portfolio margin accounts for 
whatever assets are in the securities account.
  I am disappointed that the CFTC and the Agriculture Committee 
rejected the Financial Services Committee's proposal, the adoption of 
which would enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. markets and 
streamline financial services regulation. While I will not be able to 
sign a conference report that does not incorporate our language, I will 
continue to work with Mr. Kanjorski and other members of the Financial 
Services Committee to eliminate inefficiencies and redundancies in our 
current financial regulatory regime that place U.S. firms at a 
competitive disadvantage internationally.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and 
congratulate him on successfully bringing this conference report to the 
floor after many months of hard work and committed effort. I also thank 
him for his prior support for inclusion of a muck soils conservation 
program to address serious challenges being faced by the farmers in my 
district and throughout the country. Although such language was 
included in the version of this bill passed by the House, it was 
unfortunately not able to survive the conference negotiations.
  Currently available conservation programs have shown that they do not 
specifically address the needs of farmers who produce crops on muck 
soil. The existing Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, CREP, 
seeks to prevent erosion and protect water quality through a voluntary 
retirement program. In areas like the Hudson Valley, this has created 
unintended consequences including the full retirement of productive 
soil and inflationary pressures on rental rates.
  The program included in section 2303 of the House version of the 
bill, which would have sought to meet conservation goals with practices 
that would also keep these lands active and address local rent 
pressures, will not become law as part of this bill, but the needs it 
was meant to address remain. Similarly, efforts to make changes in 
future CREP contracts at the administrative level will not address the 
rent inflation that has been created in places like Orange County, NY, 
by contracts that are in place today and will have standing for several 
years.
  The issues of unintended land retirement and rent inflation are 
ongoing challenges for farmers in my district, who as farmers in the 
Northeast, growers of specialty crops, and producers of muck land crops 
have been thrice underserved by previous farm bills.
  The chairman has been extraordinarily understanding and supportive of 
efforts to address these challenges. Again, I thank him for his efforts 
and ask if he would be willing to continue our work on this issue and 
to work with USDA on solutions that will meet the conservation goals of 
farmers on muck soils and address the unintended economic consequences 
of existing programs.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
oppose H.R. 2419, a $289 billion bill which will subsidize wealthy 
farmers and agribusiness, increase welfare benefits, violate pay-go 
rules, and will not dent our current energy needs, all paid for by the 
American taxpayer.
  Folks, this country is facing an impending entitlement crisis. In the 
next few years millions of baby boomers will begin to retire and begin 
collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits. However, the 
Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security will begin to 
pay out more in benefits than it takes in payroll taxes by 2020, and 
Medicare spending, that is already 13 percent of our Nations budget, 
will double over the next 10 years. Yet, this Democrat lead Congress 
sees fit to grant farm subsidies to farmers who are making up to $2.5 
million in income per year.
  As crop prices soar, American farm incomes are achieving record 
highs. Since enactment of the last farm bill in 2002, key crop prices 
have grown as much as 281 percent, and total farm income has more than 
doubled. More and more farmers are now multimillionaires. With $20 
billion in increased spending, this bill irresponsibly wastes taxpayer 
dollars by subsidizing an industry whose profits are soaring. The 
evidence is clear; the Department of Agriculture estimates that the 
2007 farm income was $87.5 billion, which totals a 48 percent increase 
from the previous year's level of $59 billion.
  The search for alternative energy sources is vital to our country's 
national and economic security. However, this farm bill will extend tax 
and tariff subsidies for ethanol, while keeping in place the Federal 
ethanol mandate. This has directly resulted in the price of a bushel of 
corn in this country to triple and has failed to ease our energy 
crisis. The ethanol mandate to produce alternative energy has pushed up 
the prices not only of corn, but also of crops such as soybeans that 
have been abandoned by many farmers during this current corn-planting 
bonanza. Despite these steep price increases, large subsidies for these 
crops will continue under this wasteful bill and rising food costs will 
continue to be thrown upon our citizens.
  I support our country's farmers and agree that a Federal farm program 
should be in place to alleviate farming poverty. However, with crop 
prices rising to record-breaking levels, and farm incomes doubling over 
the past 7 years, I cannot support a bill that seeks to subsidize 
multimillionaire farmers on the backs of tax paying Americans.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, section 12017 of H.R. 2419, the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, amends the Federal Crop Insurance 
Act. Among other things, the changes provide that, during periodic 
renegotiations with USDA's Federal Crop Insurance Corporation regarding 
the standard reinsurance agreement for the FCIC's crop insurance 
program, approved insurance companies may consult with each other, and 
collectively with the FCIC.
  As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to provide a bit 
of background, and to sound a cautionary note.
  For a number of years, insurance companies participating in providing 
reinsurance to the FCIC--that is, providing back-up insurance to the 
insurance being provided by the FCIC--did indeed consult with each 
other, and collectively with the FCIC. This occurred most recently in 
the 1997 renegotiation. In fact, the insurers apparently used a common 
agent to negotiate the terms of the agreement on their behalf.
  I understand that that experience may have led USDA's Risk Management 
Administration, which runs the FCIC, to begin reconsidering whether 
joint discussions were a good idea from a competitive standpoint, in 
achieving the best result with the taxpayers' dollars that the FCIC was 
spending in the reinsurance marketplace. In any event, the RMA 
evidently discussed the matter at some length with the Justice 
Department's Antitrust Division, and came away with the clear 
conviction that joint negotiations are anticompetitive--as experience 
under the antitrust laws confirms time and time again.
  As a result of its new understanding, the RMA restricted the kinds of 
collaborative consultations it would permit during the 2004 
renegotiation.
  Some may believe that the RMA either went further than it needed to 
in 2004, or that it may go further in future renegotiations, 
prohibiting consultation even on aspects of the renegotiation that not 
only are not competitively sensitive, but where the antitrust laws 
recognize that cost-saving efficiencies can be gained without harm to 
competition. To the extent that that has been a concern, the new 
language being added to the Federal Crop Insurance Act may help clear 
the way for that kind of competitively benign consultation.
  I wish to emphasize, however, that the new language does not create 
an antitrust exemption, or alter the antitrust laws in any way. The 
Supreme Court has aptly referred to the antitrust laws as the Magna 
Carta of our free enterprise system, and has said repeatedly that 
exceptions to those laws are not to be lightly inferred. Therefore, any 
insurer wishing to engage in consultations pursuant to this new 
authorization should be careful to do so in compliance with the 
antitrust laws.
  Some observers have raised the question whether some of the conduct 
that could be at issue here might be covered under the McCarran-
Ferguson Act's antitrust exemption for the business of insurance, to 
the extent that such business is regulated by State law. It is far from 
clear, however, that reinsurance being provided to the USDA's FCIC for 
its federally administered crop insurance program is in fact regulated 
by State law. And even if it were, the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not 
apply to the antitrust prohibitions against boycott, which can all-too-
easily be implicated when competing firms start coordinating their 
negotiation-related activities and strategies. These are serious 
violations of the law, and those who would seek to avoid the pitfalls 
here would be well advised to seek appropriate antitrust guidance.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I have sponsored legislation to allow farmers 
who grow fruit and vegetables for processing to opt out of farm 
programs on an acre for acre basis without limitation. That legislation 
would reduce farm program costs and improve the environment by allowing 
more extensive crop rotations. I am very pleased that the conference 
report takes a step toward that proposal by establishing a pilot 
project to allocate 75,000 acres

[[Page 9088]]

of new authority for production of fruit and vegetables for processing 
in specified Midwestern states. USDA has broad discretion in 
administration of this pilot project to meet the objectives of the 
pilot project. The conference report does not specify a procedure for 
allocation of the pilot project acreage or other administrative 
matters, such as reallocation of unused acreage allocations among 
States. However, USDA is clearly required to establish rules to assure 
that this additional fruit and vegetable production authority will not 
be abused. Only fruit and vegetables under contract for processing are 
to be produced under this authority. USDA is to assure that all of the 
crop produced is delivered to a processor and that the quantity of crop 
delivered under the original contract, the contract in existence upon 
Farm Service Agency certification, does not exceed the quantity that is 
produced on the contracted acreage. Further, the effects of the pilot 
project and FAV restrictions on the specialty crop industry, both fresh 
and processed, are to be evaluated. These restrictions are intended to 
ensure protection of the objectives of the pilot project, not to compel 
food waste or excessive regulatory burden. Further, the conference 
report includes an important statement of policy indicating that in the 
next recalculation of base acreage, fruit and vegetable production will 
not cause a reduction in farmer's base acreage. While this is a timid 
step in reducing restrictions on production of fruits and vegetables, I 
commend this step in the right direction.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
  Mr. Speaker I must state from the beginning--I have never been a 
strong supporter of the previous farm bills that we have considered.
  I and many of my constituents have long believed that the Federal 
Government wastes far too much taxpayer money on subsidizing farmers 
and farm programs.
  While it is true that many small scale farmers should be protected 
during cyclical downturns, far too much Federal funding is spent 
subsidizing large scale agribusiness and wealthy farmers who don't need 
our support.
  That being said, I appreciate the efforts of the committee to address 
some of the unnecessary spending in this bill. However I had hoped they 
would have gone further to reform farm bill programs.
  The reason I am able to support the conference report is because it 
does include a very robust nutrition title that provides $10.361 
billion in funding which will support 38 million families to purchase 
healthy foods.
  Among the key nutrition items included in the bill:
  The food stamp program is modernized to help an additional 11 million 
people by 2012.
  The Emergency Food Assistance program is expanded and indexed for 
inflation to help support food banks, soup kitchens and homeless 
shelters.
  The bill also provides $1 billion to help schools provide free fruits 
and vegetables to schoolchildren.
  These and other improvements to nutrition programs in the farm bill 
will provide much needed funding to groups like the Alameda County 
Community Food Bank and the Berkeley Food and Housing Project in my 
district.
  The conference report is also supported by a number of organizations, 
including the California Association of Food Banks, California Food 
Policy Advocates, California School Employees Association, National 
Council of Jewish Women, Congressional Hunger Center, AARP, ACORN, 
Families USA, National Association of Social Workers, National 
Association of Counties, and the Center for Law and Social Policy.
  Mr. Speaker, despite my concerns about continuing unnecessary 
subsidies, I believe the robust nutrition title in the conference 
report deserves our support.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Conference 
Committee for its hard work on the Farm Bill, and for all of the 
improvements the final bill makes to existing nutrition, conservation, 
organic farming and other important programs. But I also must express 
my great disappointment that, in this year of record crop prices and 
soaring agricultural profits, we have let a precious opportunity go by 
to implement real reform to the extremely outdated commodity and price 
support programs in the bill.
  The good news today fills a long list. According to the USDA, more 
than 11 percent of U.S. households are food-insecure. Today, we will 
approve more than $10 billion in funding for programs that provide 
American families with low cost, healthy food, including more than $1 
billion for The Emergency Food Assistance Program and more than $1 
billion for the USDA Snack Program. This bill also increases the 
minimum benefit for food stamp recipients and excludes retirement and 
education savings accounts from the assets to be considered in 
determining eligibility. And I am particularly pleased to see that it 
includes $5 million in funding annually for Community Food Projects 
grants, which funding I have previously urged Congress to maintain and 
which I engaged in a colloquy about with the gentlelady from 
Connecticut Ms. DeLauro in connection with the Fiscal Year 2008 
Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
  Similarly, the bill before us today will authorize almost $8 billion 
in conservation funding, including increasing funding for the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program by $3.4 billion, adding more 
than $1 billion in new funding for the Conservation Security Program, 
reestablishing the funding level for the Wetlands Reserve Program at 
$1.4 billion, and doubling funding for the Farm and Ranchland 
Protection Program. And I was especially pleased to see that the House-
passed provision that would have restricted USDA conservation programs 
from encouraging farmers to reduce their use of toxic pesticides in 
implementing integrated pest management programs was removed from the 
final bill, and I would like to thank the two dozen Members who joined 
me in sending a letter to the Conferees to request that the pesticides 
discrimination provision be removed.
  The Farm Bill supports organic farmers by providing $22 million in 
funding for the USDA's organic certification cost share program, which 
defrays the costs that organic producers incur when seeking organic 
certification, provides $5 million in funding for organic marketing 
data, and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make payments of 
up to $20,000 per year, capped at $80,000 over six years, to a producer 
for conservation practices related to organic production or the 
transition to organic production. I have long supported facilitating 
the conversion to organic farming, and was delighted to have the 
support of this chamber when it voted in favor of my amendment to the 
Fiscal Year 2007 Agriculture Appropriations Bill to more than double 
the funding for the Organic Transitions Research program.
  Therefore, although I will be voting in favor of this bill today, for 
all of the good that it will do, I note that there is still a 
substantial amount of good that it should have done, and will not. 
Although the commodity programs in the bill account for less than 13 
percent of the Farm Bill funding, and represent a decrease of $60 
billion compared to the last Farm Bill in 2002, we could have, and 
should have, done better.
   First, although cuts to direct payments totaled $300 million, that 
represents a decrease of less than one percent to the $50 billion 
program. At the same time, subsidies for commodities such as soybeans 
and wheat have actually increased, despite the fact that prices for 
those commodities have also increased--by more than 100 percent and 200 
percent, respectively, since 2002. The House-passed Farm Bill would 
have guaranteed $840 million in funding for the McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program over five 
years, but in the final bill the program was cut to one tenth that 
amount--only $84 million. According to news reports, the amount of 
international food aid provided represents less than 1 percent of the 
Farm Bill's total cost, while at the same time the bill preserves the 
trade-distorting subsidy programs that make it virtually impossible for 
farmers in developing nations to compete.
  And finally, I was troubled to learn that an 11th-hour change was 
inserted into the bill by the Conference Committee, despite it not 
having been debated or voted on in either Chamber, that would negate a 
U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit ruling mandating disclosure of USDA 
data relevant to producer compliance with subsidy programs. In reaching 
its decision, the Court stated that ``there is a special need for 
public scrutiny of agency action that distributes extensive amounts of 
public funds in the form of subsidies and other financial benefits.'' 
No title of the Farm Bill has been more hotly debated than the 
commodity title, the original justifications for which have all but 
evaporated over time, and thus it troubles me that a provision that not 
only goes to the very heart of that matter but also appears to fly 
squarely in the face of a recent court ruling on the subject is being 
put before this body without debate or a specific vote on the merits. 
In fact, I intend to request a hearing on this last-minute language.
  Therefore, this is one of those decisions that is not clear cut. On 
balance, I feel that the good news in the Farm Bill outweighs the bad, 
although not by much. I want to commend my colleague from Wisconsin Mr. 
Kind for his continuing leadership in working to develop a Farm Bill 
that more equitably reflects our modern day needs and economic 
realities, and I


[[Page 9089]]


want him to know that I look forward to working with him and others in 
the future to address the shortcomings of this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I have supported and cosponsored 
legislation to allow farmers who grow fruit and vegetables for 
processing to opt out of farm programs on an acre for acre basis 
without limitation. That legislation would reduce farm program costs 
and improve the environment by allowing more extensive crop rotations. 
I am very pleased that the conference report takes a step toward that 
proposal by establishing a pilot project to allocate 75,000 acres of 
new authority for production of fruit and vegetables for processing in 
specified Midwestern states. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
has broad discretion in administration of this pilot project to meet 
the objectives of the pilot project. The conference report does not 
specify a procedure for allocation of the pilot project acreage or 
other administrative matters, such as re-allocation of unused acreage 
allocations among states. However, the USDA is clearly required to 
establish rules to assure that this additional fruit and vegetable 
production authority will not be abused. Only fruit and vegetables 
under contract for processing are to be produced under this authority.
  The USDA is to assure that all of the crop produced is delivered to a 
processor and that the quantity of crop delivered under the original 
contract (the contract in existence upon Farm Service Agency 
certification) does not exceed the quantity that is produced on the 
contracted acreage. Additionally, the effects of the pilot project and 
fruit and vegetable restrictions on the specialty crop industry, both 
fresh and processed, are to be evaluated. These restrictions are 
intended to ensure protection of the objectives of the pilot project, 
not to compel food waste or excessive regulatory burden. Further, the 
conference report includes an important statement of policy indicating 
that in the next recalculation of base acreage, fruit and vegetable 
production will not cause a reduction in farmer's base acreage. While 
this is a timid step in reducing restrictions on production of fruits 
and vegetables, I commend this step in the right direction.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act. It has been a long road to this 
point, and while I must say that I am not entirely pleased with the 
final bill, I do believe that it makes important steps forward to 
reforming the priorities of our farm policy.
  Michigan has had a tough go of things lately--and farming is no 
exception. Just last spring and summer Michigan experienced severe 
weather and droughts that caused enormous damage to local farms, 
leading the USDA to designate 83 Michigan counties as disaster areas. I 
have long said that farming is an inherently risky enterprise and with 
the recent downturn in the economy and fickle Michigan weather, it is 
clear to see why.
  I will be frank and say that this bill is far from perfect. 
Personally, I would have liked to see greater reforms in the areas of 
conservation and fruit and vegetable programs, however, I do think 
Michigan will benefit from the bill. Like the farm bill the House 
passed last summer, I am pleased to note that most of our farmers in 
the 15th District of Michigan will not see any significant negative 
changes if the farm bill is enacted. All of the safety net programs 
from the 2002 farm bill are maintained with minor changes--including 
direct payments and the counter cyclical and the marketing loan 
programs.
  However, the conference report does take measures to curb wasteful 
spending and distribute our resources to those in need. This bill 
places a cap on payments to those with an adjusted gross income (AGI) 
of $500,000 or more, and puts in place the first-ever cap for farm 
income at $750,000 for fixed direct payments. In addition, the bill 
would eliminate the ``3-entity'' rule that allows producers to collect 
payments for multiple ownership interests.
  As a diverse agricultural state, Michigan has the second-widest 
variety of farm products after California, this legislation will 
provide great support for specialty crops. In 2006 Michigan produced 
825,470 tons of fresh market and processing vegetables and the state 
ranks 5th in exports of fruits and 8th in exports of vegetables 
nationally. This bill creates a brand new section dedicated to fruit 
and vegetable producers and allocates a total of $1.3 billion for new 
specialty crop programs including $466 million over ten years for the 
specialty crop block grant program, which provides grants to states to 
support projects in research, marketing, education, pest and disease 
management, production and food safety.
  The conference agreement will also create a pilot Farm Flex project 
that will allow farmers to switch base acres to specified fruits or 
vegetables for processing for 2009 through 2012 crop years. This pilot 
project is limited to seven Midwestern States, including Michigan which 
is allocated 9,000 acres. This planting flexibility pilot program 
provides an important opportunity for specialty crop producers and I am 
pleased Michigan is included. More importantly, this will help the 1.26 
million Michiganders that are currently using food stamps.
  Given Michigan's economic situation, I have advocated that a second 
economic stimulus package include an increase in food stamp benefits, 
and I am pleased that the Farm Bill has increased funding commitments 
for the Food Stamp Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program 
(TEFAP). The conference agreement includes $7.8 billion for the Food 
Stamp program and would raise and index inflation for the program's 
standard deduction and minimum benefit. This is the first time since 
the program was created 40 years ago that the Food Stamp Program would 
fully account for annual inflation. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office, this will help 11 million low income people.
  TEFAP, a program that has provided assistance to approximately one 
million people in Michigan, will see $1.26 billion in funding that will 
benefit food banks and food pantries across the country. More 
importantly, this bill will increase annual funding for commodity 
purchases from $140 million to $250 million allowing organizations to 
meet the increasing demand for food services and the rising food 
prices. The CBO estimates that Michigan alone will receive $45 million 
in additional 
TEFAP funding from fiscal year 2008 to 2017. This is critical to 
organizations in Southeastern Michigan such as Gleaners Community Food 
Bank, who just over the last holiday season provided over 34,000 meals 
using the TEFAP program.
  Now while this conference agreement contains many benefits for my 
home state, as a lifetime conservationist I am extremely disappointed 
in the conservation title. I was displeased to see that the cap for the 
Conservation Reserve Program was lowered to 32 million acres. Both the 
Senate and the House had reauthorized the current enrollment level of 
39.2 million acres. Lowering the cap would result in a cut of almost 7 
million acres. Each year this program helps produce 13.5 million 
pheasants and 2.2 million ducks. As the largest land retirement 
program, lowering the cap will be devastating.
  And while the Wetlands Reserve Program is continued through 2012, it 
is done so at a lower level than in the 2002 Farm Bill. This is 
extremely disappointing because 50 percent of Michigan's threatened or 
endangered species require healthy and functional wetlands. Michigan 
currently has enrolled 125 easements of over 16,000 acres and has a 
backlog of close to 25,000 acres. This reduction will be extremely 
detrimental as it is the only conservation program solely dedicated to 
restoring wetland habitat.
  In addition, I have real concerns about the wisdom and merit of the 
agricultural chemicals tax credit provided in Section 15343 that allows 
a tax credit up to $2,000,000 per year until 2012 for eligible 
agricultural businesses to pay for and offset the costs of security 
measures taken to protect pesticides and fertilizers used in 
agricultural operations. Fortune 500 companies that manufacture or 
retail agricultural pesticides and fertilizers should not need the 
taxpayer to help offset the costs of employee security training, 
installation of security lighting, computer security measures, locks 
and fences to protect their facilities, and other such security 
measures.
  Finally, Section 7524 amends current law to direct the Secretary of 
Agriculture to issue a permit to the Department of Homeland Security to 
transfer live foot-and-mouth disease virus from Plum Island, New York, 
to the mainland United States. The majority of the research at Plum 
Island is concentrated on foot-and-mouth disease, which is very highly 
contagious, and which Federal law has for more than 50 years restricted 
to Plum Island. An accidental release of this infectious virus could 
have grave implications for the livestock industry and for the national 
economy. This issue is highly controversial, yet it has not been the 
subject of hearings nor open debate. I believe that it is a mistake to 
proceed with this until Congress has fully examined whether USDA and 
DHS have adequately assessed the health and economic risks, 
environmental impacts, and cost-benefit of this proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a perfect one, however, it has 
bipartisan support. I know from my years in this institution that 
compromise is necessary in order to be successful, and I know the 
conferees worked night and day to come to this agreement. I feel 
confident Michigan farmers and producers will benefit from this final 
bill, as will the folks in Michigan who have fallen on hard times, 
which is why I stand today to lend my support.

[[Page 9090]]

  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Conference Report of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 
I'd like to thank the conferees who worked diligently, day and night 
for weeks, to craft this bipartisan agreement.
  This bill provides an adequate safety net for our farmers and 
guarantees an affordable and nutritious food supply for the youngest 
and most vulnerable among us, all in a fiscally responsible way. This 
bill also helps producers of all commodities stay on the land they hold 
and love so they may continue with their livelihood, and encourages 
conservation of natural resources and land for use by future 
generations.
  The bill before us today addresses many of the needs of those in 
southwest Georgia and Georgia's Second Congressional District, which I 
represent. The peanut rotation program in the conference agreement, 
which we paved the way for in the House bill last summer, will bring 
peanut growers into the next generation of agriculture by encouraging a 
cleaner, greener method of planting while ensuring an affordable and 
accessible supply to the markets that rely on U.S.-grown peanuts.
  I'm also pleased that Congress has seen fit to include $100 million 
for Pigford Claims. This funding will begin to make up for USDA's 
historical inability to govern our Nation's agriculture programs in a 
fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory manner.
  Many in this legislative body believe this bill is not perfect; truth 
be told, I am among them. I have concerns about this legislation's 
ability to completely serve our family farmers in the face of 
skyrocketing fertilizer and diesel costs, an unstable commodities 
market that could see prices plummet just as easily as it saw prices 
skyrocket, and increasingly unpredictable weather patterns that 
decimate entire crops in mere seconds.
  Despite those worries, I am even more concerned by those who view 
this bill as not having reformed our commodity programs enough.
  No, not every single reform requested by President Bush has been met. 
No, we haven't reduced the AGI to $200,000, or completely rearranged 
the accounting in this bill to deal with the changing baselines and 
budgetary gimmicking touted by the White House.
  But, there has been meaningful compromise on behalf of the lawmakers 
to whom this legislation is most important. This legislation meets the 
White House demands by more than half way; this legislation represents 
billions of dollars to not just rural America, but to people living in 
every corner of this country.
  And, if we can spend billions of dollars fighting a war and 
rebuilding another country, including supporting that country's land 
use and agriculture programs, I think we ought to be able to find it 
within our means here in Congress to support American agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, we must pass this conference report today, and we must 
do it by a sizable margin to send a message to the President that we 
will not be bullied by his negotiating tactics.
  Today, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle ``Let us not 
let the `perfect' be the enemy of the `good'.'' Let us pass this 
conference report today for our farmers and the others across this 
great Nation who rely on a safe and domestically grown food source.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, along with the gentle lady from Wisconsin, 
Representative Tammy Baldwin, I have sponsored legislation to allow 
farmers who grow fruit and vegetables for processing to opt out of farm 
programs on an acre for acre basis without limitation. That legislation 
would reduce farm program costs and improve the environment by allowing 
more extensive crop rotations. I am very pleased that the conference 
report takes a step toward that proposal by establishing a pilot 
project to allocate 75,000 acres of new authority for production of 
fruit and vegetables for processing in specified Midwestern states. 
USDA has broad discretion in administration of this pilot project to 
meet the objectives of the pilot project. The conference report does 
not specify a procedure for allocation of the pilot project acreage or 
other administrative matters, such as re-allocation of unused acreage 
allocations among states. However, USDA is clearly required to 
establish rules to assure that this additional fruit and vegetable 
production authority will not be abused. Only fruit and vegetables 
under contract for processing are to be produced under this authority. 
USDA is to assure that the crop produced is delivered to a processor 
and that the quantity of crop delivered under the original contract, 
the contract in existence upon Farm Service Agency certification, does 
not exceed the quantity that is produced on the contracted acreage. 
Further, the effects of the pilot project and FAV restrictions on the 
specialty crop industry, both fresh and processed, are to be evaluated. 
These restrictions are intended to ensure protection of the objectives 
of the pilot project, not to compel food waste or excessive regulatory 
burden. Further, the conference report includes an important statement 
of policy indicating that in the next recalculation of base acreage, 
fruit and vegetable production will not cause a reduction in farmer's 
base acreage. While this is a timid step in reducing restrictions on 
production of fruits and vegetables, I commend this step in the right 
direction.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, as a Member who represents Illinois farmers 
and rural communities, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2419, the 
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.
  The Food, Conservation and Energy Act, which is endorsed by every 
major agriculture group in my home state of Illinois, is good for our 
farmers and maintains our ability to provide a safe, affordable and 
abundant food supply.
  This bill improves nutrition and conservation programs, and supports 
biofuel production at great benefit to the Illinois farm economy. Most 
importantly, it extends a critical safety net to help farmers manage 
production risks when facing unsustainably low prices or natural 
disasters.
  Illinois receives the 4th most nutrition dollars in the nation. I was 
happy to see that nearly three-quarters of all farm bill spending will 
go toward food and nutrition programs, including $50 million for food 
pantries to address the rising costs of food and food shortages.
  The bill also increases conservation spending to safeguard 
agricultural lands from the pressures of urban and suburban 
development, and to protect our natural resources.
  Finally, the bill makes critical investments in Illinois' rural 
communities through biofuel production, telecommunications and 
wastewater infrastructure projects, and healthcare. In this time of 
economic. hardship, we look to new industries to rebuild the economy of 
Illinois and the rest of the country. This bill puts $1 billion in 
programs that will leverage renewable energy industry investments in 
new technologies and feedstocks. It also provides $320 million for 
biorefineries producing advanced biofuels, and $300 million for the 
Bioenergy Program, which directly impact Illinois.
  I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this comprehensive 
legislation that funds important programs for rural and urban 
constituents across Illinois and our Nation.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 
2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. This version of 
the Farm Bill bears significant improvements over its predecessors. I 
fully support the inclusion of an unprecedented 10.4 billion dollars 
over 10 years for the Nutrition Title that has been included in the 
Conference Report.
  Funding for the Nutrition Title will have a strong impact on efforts 
to prevent domestic hunger by increasing the Food Stamp Program's 
minimum monthly benefit and the Emergency Food Assistance Program's 
mandatory funding level. Participation in the Food Stamp Program has 
increased over the last several years, with an additional 1.3 million 
people participating in the program in the last year alone. Portions of 
my district, including Lakewood, Fairview Park and Parma, have 
experienced a 74 percent increase in participation in the Food Stamp 
Program between 2002 and 2007. The bill also provides assistance to 
food banks by $1.25 billion. I have been a consistent supporter of 
efforts in the House of Representatives to strengthen Food Stamp 
Programs, nutritional assistance programs, and other programs to 
increase the quantity and quality of food available to those most in 
need. I will continue to do so.
  These programs help to address a severe short term problem. The 
purpose of the Farm Bill is to set long term priorities. However, this 
bill maintains the very policies that are driving several underlying 
problems.
  For example, the single biggest share of subsidies under this bill 
goes to corn. Yet this bill continues massive subsidies for ethanol 
production from corn at only a slightly lower level than was previously 
the case. Corn-based ethanol is a well-known driver of recent increases 
in food costs. Some are predicting that 25 percent of the corn crop in 
the U.S. will go toward ethanol by the end of the 2008 crop year. That 
is great news for corporate agribusiness that produces most of the corn 
in the U.S. But it's bad news for food prices and those families for 
whom food costs are a large portion of their budget.
  The vast majority of corn goes to cattle feed, which has health 
implications. It increases stomach acidity in the cattle, which makes 
them more susceptible to infection by E. Coli H:0157, the source of 
many food recalls. A corn-based diet also increases the level of 
saturated fat in the meat.

[[Page 9091]]

  The ubiquity of corn in our diet is further implicated in various 
health problems like the obesity epidemic and diabetes. Abundant corn 
means that high fructose corn syrup, HFCS, a food sweetener, is cheap 
and abundant. Most Americans would be hard-pressed to get through a 
meal without consuming it. It is high in calories, with little to no 
nutritional value. Between 1970 and 1990, HFCS consumption increased by 
1000 percent, which is roughly the same period in which the obesity 
epidemic accelerated. This bill continues to subsidize HFCS, while 
taking only baby steps toward promoting healthy, locally grown fruits, 
vegetables and meats. According to writer Michael Pollan, ``the real 
price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by 
nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (aka liquid corn) 
declined by 23 percent.'' Unhealthy food is cheap. Healthy food is 
expensive. The obesity and diabetes epidemics affect low-income 
Americans more often and with more severity.
  The bill contributes to a host of environmental problems. It 
shortchanges conservation programs that can reduce global warming 
pollution. It removes the sod saver program which would have 
discouraged the alteration of valuable native grasslands and rangeland 
into crop production. It includes cuts to the Conservation Reserve 
Program and Wetland Reserve Program, which respectively substitute 
crops for resource conserving plantings on highly erodible and 
environmentally sensitive land and encourage restoration of lands to 
their original natural conditions.
  It continues to encourage factory farms where our antibiotics are 
rendered weak or useless because of overuse on cattle, where cattle are 
treated inhumanely, where toxic runoff contributes to contaminated 
drinking water, and where employees suffer the highest rates of 
workplace injuries of almost any other industry.
  Finally, this Farm Bill maintains massive giveaways to corporate 
agribusiness and rich families instead of helping the vanishing family 
farmer. Though the thresholds have been lowered compared to the past, 
this bill allows families with up to $2.5 million in income to get 
subsidies. The result is that the top 10 percent of all the benefactors 
will get about two-thirds of the payments. This bill continues the 
failed policies that allow the profits of agribusiness to skyrocket 
while pushing family farmers off their farms, forcing them to sell 
their farms to survive.
  Increasing funding to buy more nutritional foods is a good idea in 
the short term. But we need to stop perpetuating the very policies that 
cause food prices to increase and cause unhealthy food to be cheap. We 
need to move away from corn-based ethanol. We must shift subsidies 
toward healthier foods, like locally and regionally grown fruits, 
vegetables, grains and meats if we ever hope to address nutritional 
deficiencies. And we need to come to the aid of the family farmer. The 
Farm Bill does little to address these problems, and I could not vote 
for it.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 
2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
  Although I support many of the provisions included in the legislation 
before us today, I continue to oppose elements of the commodity title, 
which fall short of adequate reform. I have long opposed policy 
inequities in farm law that have resulted in large subsidies going to a 
few, mostly larger entities, leaving many small and family farms 
behind, including those in the state of Delaware. Under this 
legislation, millionaires will still be able to collect subsidies, even 
with the implementation of a means test, and direct payments are only 
cut by a minimal amount at a time when farm income is expected to reach 
a record high. Instead, we should be working toward maintaining an 
adequate safety net for farmers when food prices drop.
  Addressing this issue would bring down the cost of the overall 
legislation. Conferees working on H.R. 2419 have used last year's 
baseline to score the bill, thereby avoiding pay-as-you-go-rules, in 
order to hide a $2.9 billion increase in the deficit. It is clear to me 
that these issues need to be addressed before moving forward with this 
legislation.
  With that said, I am pleased that H.R. 2419 would increase funding 
for many of Delaware's priorities, including an additional $7.9 billion 
for conservation programs. Specifically, I support funding for the Farm 
and Ranchland Protection Program, which would be doubled above current 
levels to provide the necessary resources to prevent farmland from 
conversion into non-agricultural usage. Critical funding of $400 
million would also be provided to aid producers in reducing run-off, 
improve water quality, and restore the wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay, 
a project that I strongly support.
  This farm bill would also make significant boosts to nutrition 
programs of $10.4 billion over current levels, including school 
nutrition programs, and expands the number of families eligible for 
food stamp assistance. This legislation provides increased assistance 
to food banks at a time when many Americans are struggling to pay their 
monthly bills. Funds would also be authorized to provide relief to 
those facing hunger around the world.
  Furthermore, investments in energy are also included in this 
conference agreement as the ethanol tax credit is reduced, and instead, 
the tax credit for cellulosic energy production is increased which may 
alleviate some of the pressure corn-based ethanol has placed on food 
prices. With initiatives like these, we are working toward real 
alternatives to fossil fuels and moving one step closer to decreasing 
our dependence on fossil fuels.
  While I do support many of the provisions in H.R. 2419 and feel that 
conferees have made significant strides toward a compromise farm 
agreement, the commodity title has been left without substantial 
reform, resulting in costs to the American taxpayer. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to address these issues.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great reluctance to oppose 
the bill before us, H.R. 2419. After more than a year of negotiations, 
this is heralded as the best compromise that this Congress could come 
to. But with commodity prices through the roof, this bill rejects the 
opportunity to make a difference and instead subsidizes millionaires 
making up to $2.5 million. It makes only a cosmetic cut at best to 
direct payments at a time when some farmers are receiving record prices 
for their commodity crops.
  Taxpayer dollars are not Monopoly money yet this $300 billion bill 
treats them as such and at a time when middle-class families are 
feeling the pinch at the pump and the grocery store and the college 
admission office that is simply unconscionable.
  Additionally, this bill creates a permanent disaster program that is 
costly, unnecessary, and bureaucratic. The federal government already 
pays for (1) crop insurance to assist farmers when a crop fails, (2) 
counter-cyclical payments when prices drop, (3) marketing loans to 
allow farmers to finance a crop and guarantee a price, and (4) Direct 
Payments for no particular reason. Adding a whole new program to these 
existing programs is simply wasteful.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put: This is not a farm bill. This is not a bill 
that provides a safety net for community farmers that need our help. 
This is not a bill that addresses the skyrocketing costs of farm 
products that struggling families experience every day. This bill is 
business as usual Washington-style.
  Our agricultural policies are in desperate need of commonsense 
improvements and this bill fails to deliver. We should reject this bill 
that does nothing to support family farmers and go back to the drawing 
board for real reform.
  Farming is an important part of Minnesota's culture. A true love of 
the land and of nature's beauty is ingrained in our collective psyche 
and I have too much respect for those who live by the land to support 
this bill which does nothing to reform our farm programs but soaks the 
American taxpayers--both those who farm for a living and those who do 
not--with a deluge of unrelated pork and wasteful spending.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the Conference Report on the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
2008, and I would like to commend my colleague from Minnesota, Chairman 
Peterson, for his tireless efforts. He is a champion for rural American 
and his leadership was essential for the success of this legislation.
  The conference report--while not perfect--is a step in the right 
direction. This farm bill makes unprecedented investments in nutrition 
and conservation programs while also helping to address our Nation's 
energy crisis. In addition, this farm bill begins to scale back the 
commodity program by reducing spending on farmers who do not need the 
help.
  Three of every four dollars from this farm bill go towards nutrition 
programs, which could not come at a better time for American families. 
Even without the spike in food prices, millions of Americans are unable 
to afford a sufficient and healthy diet. Unfortunately, community food 
banks and our current nutrition programs have not been able to meet the 
growing burden from rising food costs. That is why this farm bill 
provides $50 million immediately to address the shortfalls that food 
banks and food shelves are facing right now. It also increases funding 
for nutrition programs by more than $10 billion. For the first time in 
30 years individual benefits will be increased, and
for the first time ever we will take the important step of indexing 
benefits to the cost of living. It is unacceptable that in the richest 
Nation in the world, so many go hungry--especially children. This 
legislation is a necessary step towards an America free from hunger.


[[Page 9092]]


  The farm bill also increases our commitment to international 
nutrition programs in response to growing humanitarian crises. As 
global food prices continue to rise, the aid that the U.S. provides to 
the developing world becomes more critical than ever. I am proud that 
this farm bill does include an increase in mandatory funding for the 
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition program, but 
unfortunately it provides much less--nearly $800 million less--than the 
House included in our version. There is a nationwide consensus that we 
need to do more to help feed hungry children around the world, and I 
will continue working to increase funding for the McGovern-Dole 
program.
  Investing in conservation and domestic energy programs will benefit 
Minnesota and the entire country. With almost 8 billion in new 
conservation dollars, this conference report represents a shift towards 
sustainability in U.S. farm policy. These funds will be used to extend 
and expand a variety of programs that incentivize and provide technical 
assistance for farming practices that improve the quality of soil, 
water, and air on working lands. This legislation also represents a 
real commitment to dealing with the energy crisis. With record oil 
prices and new information about corn-based ethanol, it is crucial that 
we invest in viable fuels for the future. That is why this farm bill 
provides a billion dollars for R&D of advanced biofuels and shifts 
incentives from corn-based ethanol to biofuels from feedstocks such as 
switchgrass and woodchips.
  The Food, Conservation and Energy Act modernizes and makes much 
needed reforms to the commodity payment system; by closing loopholes, 
eliminating payments to wealthy farmers, and capping direct payments, 
this bill cuts $60 billion from the commodity programs. At the same 
time, this farm bill strengthens the safety net for farmers that 
protects them against price drops, droughts, floods and other 
disasters.
  This farm bill is a bipartisan compromise that addresses our urgent 
needs and invests in our future. I urge my colleagues in joining me in 
supporting the conference report.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my reluctant 
opposition to the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. This 
legislation is a real mixed bag for Kansas farmers. While there are 
many provisions that will benefit them, it contains many provisions 
that I believe will hurt them in the long run.
  The latest information from the Congressional Budget Office indicates 
that this bill will cost us $714.2 billion over the next ten years--a 
pretty significant increase over the last farm bill. In fact, the only 
reason we are having this debate on the floor today at all is because 
the rule that provided for consideration of this bill waived points of 
order against violations of the pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, rules, which 
require any additional spending to be offset by tax increases, or 
spending cuts.
  House rules require the use of the most recent budget numbers 
available from CBO. And although we have numbers for FY 2008 available, 
the bill before us today is based on FY 2007's numbers. Why has this 
legislation not been updated to reflect the current fiscal year? 
Because doing so would reduce the baseline of available spending. If 
the Farm Bill followed the rules and instead used the updated baseline, 
it would violate PAYGO by $3.1 billion over 10 years. Ignoring the most 
recent budget numbers is like going to the gas station, and instead of 
paying $3.66 a gallon to fill up my car, I decide that I liked the 
price of a year ago better, and only pay $2.60 a gallon. Someone ends 
up getting stuck with the extra cost, and in our case, it's the 
American taxpayer. Time shifts and budget gimmicks hide another $8.5 
billion. That's $11.6 billion worth of hidden costs in this bill, all 
born in the backs of American taxpayers.
  Yet, with all of the extra money that seems to be magically available 
in this bill, the majority could not find enough money to avoid cutting 
$300 million from direct payments and $6 billion from crop insurance. 
These are the two programs that benefit Kansas farmers the most. We 
couldn't find the money to help them, which seems strange, as there was 
plenty of money available for pet projects.
  During the debate today, several of my colleagues have mentioned two 
programs that were airdropped in conference. One would provide for the 
purchase of 400,000 acres of forest land for the preservation of fish, 
and allow the Nature Conservancy to receive a $250 million tax refund, 
even though they are a non-profit organization, and pay no taxes. A 
second program provides $170 million--more than we provided for the 
victims of Hurricane Katrina--for the restoration of salmon fisheries.
  By themselves, these are rather ridiculous and unnecessary programs 
that should have been subject to House approval. Instead, they were 
inserted into the Conference Report without undergoing the scrutiny of 
this great body. That alone is disconcerting. But what makes these 
provisions especially painful for the farmers in my district is the 
fact that, if these two programs were eliminated, there would be more 
than enough money to restore the $300 million cut from direct payments. 
The cuts to crop insurance and direct payments remove the two most 
important aspects of the farm bill for Kansans. Taking money from these 
programs is unacceptable given the significant spending increases 
elsewhere.
  There are, however, good provisions in this bill. The conference 
report addresses many of the concerns voiced to me by Kansas livestock 
producers. Especially of note are the country-of-origin labeling 
provisions that will allow producers to transition into compliance in a 
smooth and cost-effective manner while providing consumers with more 
information about where their food comes from.
  This bill creates, for the first time, limitations on income for 
those receiving federal farm assistance. It provides for nearly 49 
million acres to be enrolled in conservation efforts, preserving the 
land for future generations.
  Another positive provision included in the farm bill is the tax 
incentive for cellulosic ethanol production. Cellulosic ethanol has 
great potential for helping lower the cost of fuel for American 
consumers while lessoning the strain on food prices.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the third farm bill I have had the privilege of 
considering here on the House floor. As a Kansan, I take pride in the 
work it does to help Kansas, its farmers, ranchers and producers. It 
saddens me, however, that for the first time, I cannot vote for the 
original bill or this conference report before us today. I cannot 
endorse a bill that follows the same song and dance we've seen all too 
often in Washington--a disregard for the rules of this House, coupled 
with large increases in wasteful Federal spending.
  This farm bill leaves farmers in the dust and sacrifices Kansas food 
producers on the altar of special interest fish projects. It is a shame 
some have forgotten the ``farm'' in our consideration of the farm bill.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments to 
clarify the fruit and vegetable provisions that were in the conference 
report.
  In this and previous Congresses, Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored 
legislation to allow farmers who grow fruit and vegetables for 
processing to opt out of farm programs on an acre-for-acre basis 
without limitation, changes that would reduce farm program costs and 
improve the environment by allowing more extensive crop rotations. I am 
very pleased that the farm bill conference report takes a step in this 
direction by establishing a pilot project to allocate 75,000 acres of 
new authority for the production of fruit and vegetables for processing 
in specified Midwestern states.
  To administrate this pilot project, the conference agreement gives 
the USDA broad discretion. It does not specify a procedure for 
allocation of the pilot project acreage or other administrative 
matters, such as re-allocation of unused acreage allocations among 
states. However, the agreement does clearly state that USDA is required 
to establish rules to assure that this additional fruit and vegetable 
production authority will not be abused. For example, only fruit and 
vegetables under contract for processing are to be produced under this 
authority, and the USDA is to assure that all of the crop produced is 
delivered to a processor and that the quantity of crop delivered under 
the original contract (the contract in existence upon Farm Service 
Agency certification) does not exceed the quantity that is produced on 
the contracted acreage.
  Furthermore, the effects of the pilot project and fruit and vegetable 
restrictions on the specialty crop industry, both fresh and processed, 
are to be evaluated. These restrictions are intended to protect the 
objectives of the pilot project, not to compel food waste or 
excessively burden Farmers with added regulation. Finally, the 
conference report includes an important statement of policy indicating 
that in the next recalculation of base acreage, fruit and vegetable 
production will not cause a reduction in a farmer's base acreage. While 
this is a small step in reducing restrictions on the production of 
fruits and vegetables, it is a step in the right direction, and I 
commend the conference committee for including it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1189, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Cantor

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?


[[Page 9093]]



  Mr. CANTOR. I am in its current form.
  
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         Mr. Cantor moves to recommit the conference report to 
     accompany the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation 
     of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for 
     other purposes, to the committee on conference of the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment 
     to strike (1) section 8303, relating to the sale and exchange 
     of National Forest System land, Vermont, (2) section 12034, 
     relating to fisheries disaster assistance, and (3) section 
     15316, relating to qualified forestry conservation bonds.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I think Congress should act to 
reform the earmark process.
  That's why I have introduced H.R. 595, the Stimulating Leadership in 
Limiting Expenditures (or `SLICE') Act, which would provide the 
president with a constitutionally-sound version of a line-item veto 
that could be used to force Congress to vote separately on any specific 
spending earmark.
  That's why I am a cosponsor of legislation (H. Res. 727) to put a 
moratorium on considering any bill with any congressional earmarks 
until a bipartisan panel has been set up and made recommendations for 
that reform.
  And that's why I am also cosponsoring the Earmark Transparency and 
Accountability Act (H.R. 631) which would require any earmark, to be 
effective, to be included in a bill's text--not just in a committee 
report--so it would be subject to amendment.
  But I cannot support this motion to recommit.
  If we were considering this legislation for the first time, it might 
make sense to consider sending it back to the Agriculture Committee for 
revisions.
  But we first considered this bill a year ago. Since then, the Senate 
has also acted and the differences between their version and the one we 
passed last year have been resolved by a committee of conferees 
appointed for that sole purpose.
  That purpose was fulfilled when the conferees filed their report, and 
at that point the conference committee ceased to exist.
  So, this motion would not really send the conference report back for 
more work--it would send it into oblivion.
  And while I know the conference report has flaws, I think they are 
not so great as to require us to in effect tear it up completely.
  So I urge rejection of this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on adoption of the conference report, and motion to 
suspend the rules on House Resolution 1133.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193, 
nays 230, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 314]

                               YEAS--193

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bono Mack
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Gerlach
     Lewis (KY)
     Mack
     Myrick
     Pickering
     Rush
     Schmidt
     Weller

                              {time}  1601

  Messrs. PALLONE, HOYER, BERRY, FARR, FOSTER, HODES and LARSON of 
Connecticut changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. WELDON of Florida, BACHUS, MORAN of Virginia, BURGESS and TIM 
MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.



  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.



[[Page 9094]]


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 318, 
noes 106, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 315]

                               AYES--318

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman (VA)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--106

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cooper
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Granger
     Harman
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bono Mack
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Gerlach
     Lewis (KY)
     Mack
     Myrick
     Rush
     Schmidt
     Weller

                              {time}  1607

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________