Pollinator Protection Act

Madam Chairman, today we have a bill before us that is known as the farm bill, but this bill is much more than about farms. It is about the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and, increasingly, the fuel that we will use.

The farm bill assures that we will have a safe, strong food supply now and for years to come. It funds nutrition programs and ensures that working families have enough to eat. It provides conservation programs to protect the environment. It funds rural development programs in support of our rural communities nationwide. You can see that this farm bill is certainly about more than just farms.

In addition to these important priorities, this farm bill also provides the safety net that allows our Nation's farmers and ranchers to continue to provide the food, fiber, and fuel that meet the needs of Americans and people around the world.

America is still the world's breadbasket, and that is something we should be proud of. Over the past year, my colleagues and I have traveled across the country from New York to Alabama, to my neck of the woods in Minnesota, and all the way to California. We heard from folks who are out there every day working the land, producing a diverse range of agriculture products.

The farm bill is a product of agreements that we have reached by consulting everyone interested in this process. In addition to hearings across the country, we have worked with nutrition advocates, conservation and environmental organizations, renewable energy groups, and representatives from all parts of the fruit and vegetable industry, in addition to the farm groups traditionally involved in the farm bill.

At the end of that process, we now have more than 100 organizations representing conservation, nutrition, rural development, renewable energy, labor and farm groups that have signed on in support of this bill. I think that this unprecedented support is a direct result of our efforts to be inclusive in this farm bill process.

There are very few issues that the National Farmers Union and the American Farm Bureau Federation can agree on, but at the end of the day, they both support this bill.

The members of these groups who support our farm bill are the real experts on farm policy because it is a reality that they live each day of their lives. They are the ones on the land planting the crops, managing the livestock and taking the risk inherent in the industry of farming. They are the ones who represent the people using the farm bill's nutrition programs. They are the ones working to implement good conservation practices in the communities across this country. If they support our bill, then I know that we're doing the right thing.

This farm bill also includes significant reforms. Of course, some people think we went too far. Others think we didn't go far enough. But everybody seems to agree that they never thought that we could get an agreement that went as far as it has. That is what this farm bill is about. We got the different groups into the room and produced an agreement that everyone feels like they've been part of the process, even if they didn't get exactly what they wanted.

This bill does make significant changes, including a hard cap on subsidies for the first time ever. We've taken the $2.5 million adjusted gross income cap down to $500,000. And we have put a hard cap on of $1 million so that anybody over $1 million of adjusted gross income will not receive farm payments after this bill passes.

We have also cut the soft cap that I mentioned on adjusted gross income to $500,000. We also, in this bill, required direct attribution for the first time of farm program payments so that people won't be able to get around the payment limits by receiving payments through different business entities. These are not insignificant by any means, and these changes will affect thousands of farmers nationwide.

In the area of conservation, too, we have made significant changes as well as new investments. One thing we've done, we have included the same kind of payment limits on conservation programs that we have had for farm programs. That way, there's more money available to more farmers to participate in these popular programs.

The bill also includes $3.8 billion in new spending for conservation programs over the next 5 years. These programs help farmers protect the environment with programs that reduce erosion, enhance water supply, improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat, and reduce damage caused by floods and other natural disasters.

This farm bill provides new resources to protect and preserve the Chesapeake Bay and other high-priority areas, and it encourages private land owners to provide public access for hunting, fishing and other recreational activities.

In the area of renewable energy, this farm bill invests in programs that will help encourage the development of cellulosic ethanol in this country. In my opinion, this represents the future for American agriculture. Once we can establish the first facilities that can make ethanol from agricultural waste and other biomass products, we will take a huge step in a new direction for agriculture and for rural America.

Many of the best feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol will also provide benefits for wildlife and for the environment. Renewable fuels have brought new investment and new jobs for rural America, and this is one of the most exciting things that's happened in my life and in American agriculture.

We have also proposed increases in the farm bill's nutrition title. This has been a source of some controversy this week, but not because people disagree with the idea that we should be increasing these benefits which have been stagnant for many years and making sure that benefits keep pace with inflation,

Instead, the controversy has involved the proposal that the Ways and Means Committee has proposed to offset the cost of these changes. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that there is a difference between closing a loophole in current tax law and increasing taxes. This proposal won't raise taxes, but it will hold some foreign companies who should be paying taxes accountable for what they owe.

The Agriculture Committee agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that these changes in the nutrition program were important to help working Americans access these nutrition programs, and we have found a reasonable, fiscally responsible way to do this.

Another area where this farm bill makes great strides is in funding for programs that strengthen the fruit and vegetable industry. We have worked with this industry and have included $1.5 billion in new mandatory money for them in this farm bill. That's the first time that we've done this.

The Specialty Crop Alliance, United Fresh, and many other fruit and vegetable groups strongly support this bill as passed by the Agriculture Committee.

We also worked with several caucuses in crafting this bill, including the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Native American Caucus. With the Congressional Black Caucus, we have worked to address important issues, including a program in the manager's amendment that will help black farmers who did not get their day in court due to inadequate notice and an arbitrary deadline established after the Pigford case was settled. This provision will allow farmers who filed their claims after the national deadline to have their cases heard.

We have also included other provisions to make USDA programs more accessible to minority, socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers and ranchers. This includes provisions to expand access to land, credit, conservation and rural development programs.

One of the most important compromises reached in this farm bill was an agreement to finally, after a long delay, implement mandatory country of origin labeling. We put both sides in the room; we told them to come out with a compromise, and they delivered. As a result, with this farm bill, consumers in this country will finally be able to tell where their fruit and vegetables and meat products in their grocery stores are coming from, and we think it's about time.

We accomplished all of this under an open process where everyone was included. All members of our committee were engaged in this process, and I'm proud to say that some of our newest freshman Members, including colleagues that have been there for years, really brought a lot of constructive ideas and a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the table and helped us come up with a bill that we are all very proud of.

There is something in this bill for everybody to like. There's probably something in this bill for everybody not to like. But it's a step in the right direction and has broad support, as I said, from many organizations. And I encourage my colleagues to support this farm bill which supports all of us with food, fiber and fuel.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel from New York.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my good friend Mr. Lantos from California.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond.

I just want people to remember what happened with the '95-'96 farm bill, which was a partisan farm bill. So, we've been down this road before.

I recognize the distinguished subcommittee chairman, my good friend, Mr. Holden from Pennsylvania, chairman of the Conservation Credit, Energy and Research Subcommittee and vice-chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, for 2 minutes.

I am now pleased to recognize another subcommittee chairman, the chairman of the Specialty Crops Subcommittee and my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) for 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I am now pleased to recognize the chairman of our General Farm Commodities Subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), for 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee, my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), another of our great subcommittee chairmen, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Madam Chairman, I yield for purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), the subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee of Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, one of our outstanding Members, who has done a great job.

(Mr. CARDOZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), one of our great committee members and a great friend of mine.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) we have enjoyed working with you and your Members, but I don't agree with you. I don't believe there is a tax increase in this bill. I have looked at it. I am a CPA, and I think you can say it either way, but I don't believe it is a tax increase.

The $60 billion did come out of baseline not because anybody cut it, but because the program worked the way it is supposed to. Prices are up and spending went down. We are missing the money, but it wasn't because anybody cut it.

We have a good bill, and I encourage all Members to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend Chairman Peterson and the members of the Agriculture Committee for completing the difficult task of bringing this bill to the floor in a bipartisan fashion.

I supported the 2002 farm bill, which has served Michigan farmers well. The agricultural sector in this country is strong, and it is a good time to take a look at our farm support system and figure out how we can make it better for small farmers and specialty crop farmers.

We must recognize that farming is an inherently risky enterprise; producers are exposed to both production and price risks. Therefore, it is incumbent upon our government to be there for farmers when markets fail. We cannot afford to turn our back on America's farmers and our farm policy should be structured so that those who produce the safest and most abundant food supply in the world have an adequate safety net. We should also promote research to find new uses for the agricultural products grown in our fields and to promote these products in the global marketplace. However, it is not our responsibility to give cash payouts to millionaires, dead farmers or suburbanites who have no involvement in farming but just happened to purchase a house located on farmland.

In 2005, 92 percent of the total farm payments last year went to just five crops. Michigan has the second-most diverse agriculture base in the Nation and I am glad to see that for the first time, the farm legislation before us today guarantees a historic $1.5 billion in funding for fruit and vegetable programs, including the school fresh fruit and vegetable program, the farmer's market promotion program, specialty crop block grants and research and organic food programs--all of which provide valuable support for the fresh fruit and vegetable growers in Michigan.

The legislation before us today strengthens incentives for farmers to conserve valuable natural resources and protect the environment. Currently, three out of four farmers are turned away from conservation programs due to lack of funding. It is unacceptable for farmers who are trying to do the right thing for the environment to be rejected because we have not allocated enough resources to help them. H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, adds $4.3 billion more to preserve farm and ranchland, improve water quality and quantity, and enhance soil conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitat on working lands.

I support the Fairness amendment offered by my colleague Ron Kind not because I am dissatisfied with H.R. 2419 but because I believe that it goes one step farther towards curbing taxpayer subsidies by reforming our farm payment system to direct aid to those who need assistance. Make no mistake, the Fairness amendment does not dismantle the

safety net--it just modernizes the program so that it works better for family farms and 348 Congressional Districts, including Michigan's 15th District, which would gain $6 million under the Kind proposal.

The Fairness amendment does not weaken any of the commendable nutrition or conservation provisions in H.R. 2419--rather, it makes them better by adding $2 billion for nutrition programs and $3 billion for conservation programs. Moreover, it does all of this without requiring spending offsets or new taxes.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2419 contains no legislative text expressing a view on whether manure should be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, CERCLA, or the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, EPCRA. The absence of any such text is proper both for parliamentary and policy reasons.

The report that accompanies this legislation, however, references a ``sense of the committee'' amendment that farm animal manure should not be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant to CERCLA and EPCRA.

I strongly disagree with these sentiments, which would create a blanket exemption from important environmental laws for those large concentrated animal feeding operations that pollute public drinking water supplies with phosphorous and emit more than 100 pounds per day of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide into the air.

Manure is not at risk of being deemed a ``hazardous substance'' or ``hazardous waste.'' That is misinformation put forth by some. Phosphorous, however, is a ``hazardous substance'' under CERCLA and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has determined that both ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are ``extremely hazardous substances'' for the ``reportable quantity'' reporting requirements of EPCRA.

Congress clearly intended that the Superfund program deal with the improper and excessive application of fertilizer that pollutes drinking water supplies or damages natural resources. This is manifestly clear because Section 101 (22) of the Superfund statute creates an exemption from the definition of release for ``the normal application of fertilizer.'' If substances such as phosphorous that emanate from the excessive application of manure fertilizer are exempted, the only people being protected are the bad actors.

These large concentrated animal feeding operations produce huge amounts of animal waste. For example, an animal feeding operation with 2 million hogs produces a volume of manure equal to the solid waste stream of a U.S. city of about 2.7 million--a city similar in size to Chicago's 2.8 million population.

The Environmental Protection Agency has found that large-scale concentrated animal feeding operations present significant human health and environmental risks. Let me quote EPA's findings:

``Significant human health and environmental risks are generally associated with large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, CAFOs. Improper handling of manure from feedlots, lagoons and improper land application can result in excessive nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous); pathogens (i.e., fecal coli form); and other pollutants in the water. This pollution can kill fish, cause excessive algae growth, and contaminate drinking water. In addition, emissions of air pollutants from very large CAFOs may result in significant health effects for nearby residents.''

A blanket exemption from CERCLA for excessive application of manure fertilizer would also shift the costs onto community water systems and their ratepayers for additional treatment to make water potable. I attach the July 23, 2007, letter from the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies that highlights the serious consequences that any such an exemption would have for the quality our Nation's drinking water supplies.

Mr. Chairman, the Farm Bill Extension Act also makes changes to the Rural Utilities Service broadband loan and loan guarantee program. While this program is in dire need of reform, I am concerned about several provisions in the measure as drafted.

The measure wisely limits loans and loan guarantees in areas where consumers already have broadband service available to them. I am deeply concerned, however, that it describes those areas where broadband is available too broadly, so that applications to provide broadband to large areas of a community that currently have no broadband service at all would be denied.

The bill also prohibits support in areas where more than 75 percent of households have access to broadband. National satellite broadband providers can in theory reach close to 100 percent of households. However, while satellite-delivered broadband is a rapidly-improving and valuable service, particularly in remote areas, today it is often not comparable to terrestrially-delivered broadband. It typically cannot reach the same speeds and is more expensive and subject to outages in heavy rainstorms and other severe weather. While I appreciate the bill's commitment to technological neutrality, if satellite-delivered broadband is not excluded from the 75-percent requirement, there may be few areas that would be eligible for loans.

When it comes to broadband service, speed is critical, and the measure could also be improved by giving priority to applications that, other things being equal, propose to offer higher broadband speeds to consumers.

I also strongly disagree with creating within the Department of Agriculture a National Center for Rural Telecommunications Assessment to increase broadband penetration and develop assessments of broadband availability in rural areas. These are matters that fall squarely within the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and should be left to that agency's expertise. Likewise, any report describing a comprehensive rural broadband strategy should be developed by the FCC rather than by the Department of Agriculture. I applaud the goal of working toward universal broadband availability and urge my colleagues to ensure that we attain that goal by allowing the FCC, the agency with the most expertise, to spearhead that effort.

Association of

Metropolitan Water Agencies,

Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.

Subject: Oppose CERCLA Animal Waste Exemption in Farm Bill.

Dear Representatives: As the House of Representatives

prepares this week to consider legislation to reauthorize the

Farm Bill, we urge you to reject language that would exempt

components of animal waste from designation as a hazardous

substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Enactment

of such an exemption would bring about serious consequences

for the quality of America's drinking water supplies.

During last week's markup of the legislation, the

Agriculture Committee adopted an amendment expressing the

``sense of the committee that farm animal manure should not

be considered as hazardous substance'' under CERCLA. This

follows the introduction earlier this year of legislation in

the House and Senate that would specifically exempt animal

waste and its components from the law.

As representatives of community drinking water systems, we

believe it is important to note that animal manure itself is

not currently considered a hazardous substance, pollutant or

contaminant under CERCLA. Moreover, the law already contains

an exemption for the normal application of fertilizer that

includes manure.

However, phosphorus and other CERCLA-regulated hazardous

substances that are known to compromise the quality of

drinking water are commonly present in animal manure. If

Congress were to provide a blanket CERCLA exemption for

animal waste, consolidated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)

would be free to discharge manure containing such hazardous

substances into the environment without regard to its impact

or liability for its damages. As a result, the costs of

additional treatment to make water potable would be forced

upon community water systems and their ratepayers, unfairly

shifting the burden of cleanup away from polluters.

Later this year, Congress will celebrate the 35th

anniversary ofthe Clean Water Act, landmark legislation

modeled on the belief that all Americans must share the

responsibility of maintaining the health of our nation's

water supply. Exempting CAFOs from their fair share of this

duty not only threatens to reverse the water quality gains

that have been realized over the recent decades, but would

also set a dangerous precedent encouraging other polluters to

seek waivers from our environmental laws.

Again, we urge you to oppose a blanket exemption for animal

waste and its components from the important requirements of

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chairman, it's a sad day for American agriculture when the Democratic leadership pits America's farmers and ranchers against America's working class. The tax increases included in this bill stand to jeopardize millions of American jobs by raising taxes on companies that do business in the U.S. Not only does this provision cunningly added by the Democrat leadership after the bill left the control of the Agriculture Committee jeopardize American jobs, it stands to violate treaties with other nations and lead to significant ramifications for U.S. companies with operations in other countries. Worst of all, we're not even considering a tax bill; we're considering a farm bill, a farm bill that has been twisted into a partisan pawn.

At the beginning of the week, I stood beside the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to voice my support for this bill that we had worked in a bipartisan fashion to bring to the floor. I had only one caveat, that the offsets not be in the form of tax increases. Not 24 hours before we were to consider this bill on the floor, we were made aware of a tax increase provision that had been added to this language behind closed doors. Unfortunately, all of the good things contained in this bill have been overshadowed by very partisan elements of what should be a bipartisan bill. Today we should be debating the merits of this bill, a bill that was carefully crafted to meet the calls for reform and expand programs such as nutrition and fruits and vegetable programs. But the leadership has decided to take American agriculture out of the debate on the farm bill.

Heading into the reauthorization of the farm bill, Agriculture Committee Republicans anticipated problems with the budget, given the collapse of the baseline projections for the commodity programs. The lack of funding for the nutrition interests further compounded the problem. As the number of nonfarm interests in farm bill funding has grown and the availability of funding dwindled, farm programs have become particularly vulnerable, and the Democratic leadership and the Budget Committee refused to address the needs of a forward-looking farm bill.

From the start, the Agriculture Committee Republicans have made our concerns about funding for this bill very clear. When the chairman announced his projected farm bill time line on May 17, I urged him not to rush the process and find the offsets before promising the money in the farm bill language. Again and again, I, along with my subcommittee ranking members, have implored the committee to slow down, to wait until the money is available before moving ahead.

At the Conservation, Credit, Energy and Rural Development Subcommittee markup on May 22, both subcommittee ranking member Frank Lucas and I urged caution in rushing the process.

On May 24, at the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry markup, the message was the same. The subsequent markups on June 6, 7, 15 and 19, the message to the leadership of this committee was the same; slow down and find the money. We were consistently told the money would be made available, and we were consistently denied any further information.

It would be disingenuous for my Agriculture Committee Democrat colleagues to claim our objections are at all new or recently conceived. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion throughout this process and had the opportunity to take a bipartisan product of the committee to the floor. But our work has been undermined by the addition of tax increases without consultation, review or due process to cover the extra costs of the bill.

Despite repeated assurances that the $4 billion in offsets would not come from tax increases, here we are, looking at tax increases as a funding mechanism of choice employed by the Democratic leadership.

Moreover, to insinuate that Democrats were made to do anything by the Republicans' opposition to revisions that would directly impact U.S. jobs is preposterous. The Democrats and the Democrats alone are solely responsible for any modifications made to this bill after it left the Agriculture Committee.

Because the Democrat leadership won't invest in American agriculture, they're calling for increased taxes to pick up the tab to fund our domestic priorities by increasing taxes on companies that provide millions of Americans with good jobs and stimulate economic growth.

I anticipate this tax increase will likely be the first of many needed to fund the priorities that bulge between the majority's budgets.

Rural America is served best when we work together in a bipartisan fashion. With passage of this rule, partisanship invades rural America and destroys bipartisan support for the underlying legislation.

I want to be clear, I support the farm bill. I do not support the nonagriculture, non-Agriculture Committee approved tax increase that has been shamefully attached to this legislation.

Prior to the announcement of this tax increase, it was clear that the administration, which has opposed this bipartisan effort, it was clear that a veto threat was headed our way.

A bipartisan farm bill without this tax increase would have produced a veto-proof majority and would have sent this farm bill soaring into the negotiations with the Senate. Now this farm bill will not be an effective product to move American agriculture forward.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that neither I nor any other Republican on this committee that I know of ever went to him and asked for any, any funds whatsoever, certainly not from a tax increase.

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the distinguished ranking member on the Agriculture Committee.

(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, another of our ranking members on the committee, Mr. Lucas.

Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from California (Mrs. Bono).

Madam Chairman, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), a very strong member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, another of the subcommittee ranking members on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Neugebauer.

Madam Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a new member of the committee who has distinguished himself.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say to the gentleman from Georgia that no one on this side of the aisle is turning their back on anybody. We are simply recognizing that increasing taxes in order to pay for what is in this farm bill is the wrong thing to do. To set businesses who have invested in this country and the American workers whose jobs depend on them against that is very, very wrong, and I would suggest to the gentleman that everyone I have talked to has called this a tax increase.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a distinguished member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the committee whose work we appreciate.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the distinguished ranking member on the House appropriations agriculture subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just say, Madam Chairman, that we reach this point in a process that has been going on for about 2 years. It spanned both my chairmanship and the current chairman's chairmanship. It has encompassed a great deal of effort to write a bipartisan farm bill. We have listened to hundreds of farmers. We have received input from thousands of farmers and ranchers and others interested in this legislation.

We address the reform that has been requested in a farm bill. We have addressed the concerns about more funding for fruits and vegetables for nutrition and conservation and renewable fuels. And then to have this tax increase injected into this process after the bill has left the committee is why you have heard every single Member on this side of the aisle speak about how they feel betrayed by this process. It is unfortunate for us, but it is also unfortunate for this farm bill because what happens when it leaves the House, if it passes at all, will be very different than if it passed leaving this House with a veto-proof majority. That opportunity has been lost.

I would say to those on the other side of the aisle we can fix that if we would simply slow down and take a look at the appropriate way to pay for the additional funding that is due this committee because we took a $60 billion cut in the budget. The way to do that is to vote for the motion to recommit that we will offer later on that will say you can have this farm bill that we have all praised and send it back to the committee to look for an appropriate way to do this without pitting American agriculture against American industry by having a tax increase imposed to pay for the things that are in this bill.

That's the appropriate way to proceed here. That would restore the bipartisanship that is needed in this process, and that would restore a good future for this farm bill, which is very much endangered because of the injection of this partisan tax increase that has been laid at our doorstep, the most bipartisan committee in the House of Representatives that has worked so hard and so long. And to be faced with this at the end is wrong. I do not support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act, because I recognize its value to rural America and the promise it brings for renewing our national commitment to agriculture, nutritional research and food safety, and alternative energy and conservation.

I recognize that this legislation has been carefully crafted by a committee chaired by our highly respected colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Peterson. I commend him for his leadership. This legislation sets Federal farm policy and will be the basis for agricultural governance over the next 5 years. Importantly, it takes into account in several respects, the needs and priorities of farmers and ranchers residing in the territories.

The bill earns my support because it provides a reliable safety net for commodity crops, buttresses, in many respects, core conservation programs, and will now strengthen important domestic and international food nutrition programs.

Within this bill is a renewed and increased commitment to specialty crops. Specialty crops are important to the farmers and ranchers and consumers in the territories. Mr. Chairman, in the territories, we live and share the experiences of everyday life in rural America. We have much in common with our fellow Americans living and working in the small States and in the heartland of the U.S. mainland. We are economically challenged and strong Federal-local partnerships are the backbone of our ability to grow and diversify our economies.

Conservation in the islands is achieved through such partnerships. This bill presents a means through which such partnerships can be continued and strengthened. Historically, the Government of Guam has sought and utilized loans and programs under the Rural Development umbrella of the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, to build its public works and infrastructure. Our utilities have largely and historically been constructed with Rural Development support. The continuation of authority for the range of Rural Development programs administered by USDA through Title VI of H.R. 2419 is one reason why I lend my support to this bill. These programs will be relied upon as a means to help our community of Guam meet additional and projected needs associated with the rebasing of Marines from Okinawa to Guam and realignment of defense forces in the Pacific Rim.

The bill carries other provisions of unique interest to me and to my colleagues from the territories. In particular, I am grateful for the accommodations made and the support received from Chairman Peterson and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for two specific provisions.

First, now within the research title of the bill, as a result of the amendment I sponsored with the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Christensen, the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, and the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Fortuno, that was packaged into the en bloc amendment offered by Chairman Peterson, USDA will have authority to award grants to the land grant institutions in the territories for facilities improvements, construction, and equipment acquisition and repair.

Congress designated the University of Guam and the University of the Virgin Islands as land grant institutions by an Act passed in 1972. That Act was amended by Congress in 1980 to designate American Samoa Community College, the Northern Marianas College, and the College of Micronesia, as land grant institutions.

The land grants colleges and universities in the territories are a unique set of institutions with special needs and challenges within the national land grant college and university family. Our institutions are known informally as the 1972 community, and like the 1890 and 1994 communities, are an underserved set of institutions that USDA has authority to support in key areas.

The new authority under this bill for a grants program in support of facilities improvements and equipment acquisition will strengthen the institutional capacity at the land grant institutions in the territories to sponsor research and execute extension activities of national value. This is a $40 million authorization across 5 years. We have requested that this authority be included within the bill to complement USDA resources to support research and extension and instruction capacity building in the territories. Our land grant institutions are vital to our success in the islands--economically,

agriculturally, scientifically, and environmentally. Our institutions have limited resources, but these institutions and the territorial governments meet the matching requirements under the Hatch Act each year because these programs are so important to our communities.

The bill also extends the authorization for two grants programs authorized by the 2002 farm bill. These are the resident instruction and distance education grants programs for the territories.

Second, is an amendment that we proposed and that was placed into the bill to amend the definition of ``State'' in the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 to include American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands of the United States, as eligible recipients of block grant funding that stands to be reauthorized by this bill. The inclusion of this provision is a significant victory for the territories. I am grateful for the support received from the gentleman from California, Mr. Cardoza, for its inclusion in the bill.

Our farmers have invested in harvesting many traditional and tropical fruits, nuts, and horticultural specialties. Avocados, bananas, beans, betel nuts, breadfruits, coconuts, cucumbers, grapefruit, guavas, limes and lemons, mangoes, oranges, papayas, peppers, pineapples, squash, sweetsops, tangerines, tomatoes, and watermelons, are, for example, several of the specialty crops harvested in the territories whose market competitiveness stands to be improved now as a result of this bill.

The inclusion of the territories in this block grant funding will help our local Departments of Agriculture increase the capacity of our farmers to competitively farm and sell specialty crops. On Guam alone, the market value of specialty crops sold was estimated in 2002 by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) at $3.4 million. We hope this new funding will result in increased production of fresh vegetables and local fruits and make Guam's market prices competitive.

It is for these reasons, and others, that I support H.R. 2419. As the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, I recognize the value the bill presents for conservation. I support it because of its conservation provisions. I look forward to working with the leadership to protect the provisions important to the territories and to national conservation by the conference committee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Not that I don't support the Grassland Reserve Program, but the provisions of the commodity title were worked out by the committee very carefully in an effort to balance all of the various commodities' needs in that process. We don't think that it is fair to single out one commodity for changes even though it is for a worthwhile purpose. Cotton has already seen major changes with the bill's termination of the storage payments and also major reforms in payment limitations.

Additionally, the bill provides 1,340,000 acres to be enrolled in GRP, a substantial increase. I know that the gentleman from Colorado has been a leader in the coalition that has been advocating this program, and I appreciate his efforts and leadership in this area. Unfortunately, targeting any single commodity, in this case, cotton, for further reductions in their safety net is unwarranted and unfair. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the General Farm Commodity Subcommittee that deals with this issue, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, I think that the other gentlemen have eloquently stated the case, and I want to reiterate that this is not a fair process to single out one commodity.

I want to take the balance of my time to recognize the tremendous efforts of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) in working with us on this farm bill. And also, if he were here, he would be speaking out very strongly on this amendment as well. We oppose this amendment and encourage our colleagues to support us in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we had a debate similar to this not too long ago, and I'll say it again, that while we've added several billion dollars to the conservation baseline, we still have backlogs in most of those programs.

And the question to me is the same: if large farms shouldn't be eligible for title I payments, why should they be eligible for title II payments? If these operations are diversified enough to have problems with farm income exemption, same question, do they really need Federal payments?

So I'd like to hear the arguments against because, to me, a strong title I is necessary to even carry out our conservation programs. If the farmers don't have a strong safety net, that work on conservation is going to be the first thing that's sacrificed. So with limited Federal funds for conservation, we need to make priorities, and providing funds for larger producers and folks with lots of off-the- farm income is a tough choice; but it's a choice we have to make.

I'd just like to say that one of the most important reforms that people have pointed to in this bill is that we have finally put a hard cap on adjusted gross income, and this has caused a lot of pain for a lot of people. So it just is not right to have a hard cap on the commodity title and not have a hard cap on conservation.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I guess we have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following information for the Record.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, July 26, 2007.

Hon. Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rangel: Thank you for your letter regarding

the Committee on Ways and Means' jurisdictional interest in

H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act 2007.

I appreciate your willingness to expedite this legislation

for floor consideration, with the understanding that it does

not prejudice your Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on

this or similar legislation.

I will submit a copy of your letter and this response as

part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the

legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your support of

H.R. 2419 and your cooperation as we work towards enactment

of this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Collin C. Peterson,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for that statement. I want to alert the Members of the body that this motion to recommit has the word ``promptly'' in it. What that means is if this goes back to the committee, this kills this bill. It kills the reform that we have done in this bill. It kills the additional nutrition that has been put into this bill, the energy, all the other hard work of this committee.

Now, I am a CPA, and I used to do taxes for a living. I agree with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee: this is not a tax increase. This is doing what is right for this country.

What we ought to be looking into is why we are having the taxpayers of this country fund people in the Treasury Department and fund people in the State Department to go out and make treaties with other countries so we can have foreign corporations come to this country and avoid taxes.

That is what this is about. If you have a straight-up deal between the United States and Germany, this does not affect you. It only affects you if you set up a corporation in another country that doesn't have a tax rate and go through that process.

Mr. Speaker, you can call this whatever you want. But the truth of the matter is that if you send the bill back to the Agriculture Committee, we do not have the offsets in the Agriculture Committee to do what is in this bill. So you are, in effect, killing this bill. I just want everybody to understand that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).