|
Washington, DC - Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI15) today joined a majority in the House of Representatives to support fiscally responsible, fully paid for legislation that makes family farmers a priority, invests in conservation and renewable energy and supports nutrition programs that help families in need. The House passed HR 2419, the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007, by a vote of 231-191.
The Farm Bill imposes payment limitations that crack down on subsidies, saves more than a half billion dollars and redirects funds to the people who need it most: working family farmers and ranchers. The bill also:
- Guarantees a historic $1.5 billion in funding for fruit and vegetable programs, which have not received traditional Farm Bill benefits and includes new transparency rules to ensure the public knows taxpayer dollars are getting to the family farmers who need them.
- Expands nutrition programs that help 35 million low-income families by providing an additional $4 billion for nutrition programs over the next five years, including a long overdue increase in the minimum benefit for the Food Stamp program.
- Makes a strong investment in the environment by adding $4.3 billion in funding and improving access to conservation programs that reward farmers and ranchers for helping improve water quality, restore and protect wildlife habitats, and for serving as the front line against sprawl.
- Boosts renewable energy programs by 600 percent, providing $2 billion in loan guarantees for the development of refineries that process renewable fuels, a key step toward bringing more renewable fuels to market in America.
The Congressman entered the following remarks during consideration of HR 2419 today:
“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. HR 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 HR 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 HR 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.
“Madam Speaker, HR 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 US 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 of our Nation’s drinking water supplies.
“Madam Speaker, 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.”
Congressman Dingell also voted for an amendment offered by Representative Ron Kind (D-WI03) that would have taken the bill one step farther through further reforms in the payment program in order to boost funding for the conservation and nutrition titles. The Kind Amendment failed by a vote of 117-309.
|
