[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 103 (Thursday, June 16, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5615-H5632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
MEAT AND POULTRY SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR ACT OF 2022
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
1170, I call up the bill (H.R. 7606) to establish the Office of the
Special Investigator for Competition Matters within the Department of
Agriculture, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 16, 2022, on page H5615, in the first column, the following
appeared: Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 1170, I call up the bill (H.R. 7606) to establish
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. DAVID SCOTT
of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1170, I call
up the bill (H.R. 7606) to establish
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, in lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Agriculture printed in the bill, an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
117-50, modified by the amendment printed in part E of House Report
117-366, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 7606
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Lower
Food and Fuel Costs Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.
TITLE I--MEAT AND POULTRY SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR
Sec. 101. Office of the Special Investigator for
Competition Matters.
TITLE II--ADDITIONAL NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
Sec. 201. Additional nutrient management assistance.
TITLE III--AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEM SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE AND
CRISIS RESPONSE TASK FORCE
Sec. 301. Agriculture and Food System Supply Chain
Resilience and Crisis Response Task Force.
TITLE IV--BIOFUEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND AGRICULTURE PRODUCT MARKET
EXPANSION
Sec. 401. Biofuel infrastructure and agriculture product
market expansion.
TITLE V--YEAR-ROUND FUEL CHOICE
Sec. 501. Ethanol waiver.
TITLE VI--PRODUCING RESPONSIBLE ENERGY AND CONSERVATION INCENTIVES AND
SOLUTIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (PRECISE)
Sec. 601. Conservation loan and loan guarantee program.
Sec. 602. Assistance to rural entities.
Sec. 603. Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Sec. 604. Conservation Stewardship Program.
Sec. 605. Delivery of technical assistance.
TITLE VII--BUTCHER BLOCK ACT
Sec. 701. Assistance for new and expanded livestock or
poultry processors.
Sec. 702. New and expanding livestock or poultry processing
grants.
TITLE VIII--LOWER FOOD AND FUEL COSTS SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2022
SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
TITLE I--MEAT AND POULTRY SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR
SEC. 101. OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR FOR COMPETITION
MATTERS.
(a) In General.--The Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 is amended by inserting after
section 216 (7 U.S.C. 6916) the following:
``SEC. 217. OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR FOR
COMPETITION MATTERS.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the
Department an office, to be known as the `Office of the
Special Investigator for Competition Matters' (referred to in
this section as the `Office').
``(b) Special Investigator for Competition Matters.--The
Office shall be headed by the Special Investigator for
Competition Matters (referred to in this section as the
`Special Investigator'), who shall be a senior career
employee appointed by the Secretary.
``(c) Duties.--The Special Investigator shall--
``(1) use all available tools, including subpoenas, to
investigate and prosecute violations of the Packers and
Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) by packers and
live poultry dealers with respect to competition and trade
practices in the food and agricultural sector;
``(2) serve as a Department liaison to, and act in
consultation with, the Department of Justice and the Federal
Trade Commission with respect to competition and trade
practices in the food and agricultural sector;
``(3) act in consultation with the Department of Homeland
Security with respect to national security and critical
infrastructure security in the food and agricultural sector;
``(4) maintain a staff of attorneys and other
professionals with appropriate expertise; and
``(5) in carrying out the requirements of this
subsection, coordinate with the Office of the General Counsel
and the Packers and Stockyards Division of the Agricultural
Marketing Service.
``(d) Prosecutorial Authority.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding title 28, United
States Code, the Special Investigator shall have the
authority to bring any civil or administrative action
authorized under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7
U.S.C. 181 et seq.) against a packer.
``(2) Effect.--Nothing in this section alters the
authority of the Secretary to issue a subpoena pursuant to
the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
``(3) Notification.--With respect to any of the actions
brought under this subsection in Federal district court, the
Special Investigator shall notify the Attorney General.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 7014(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(11) The authority of the Secretary to carry out
section 217.''.
(c) Technical Amendment.--Subtitle A of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 is amended by
redesignating the first section 225 (relating to Food Access
Liaison) (7 U.S.C. 6925) as section 224A.
TITLE II--CROP NUTRIENT USE AND PRECISION AGRICULTURE PRACTICE ADOPTION
ASSISTANCE
SEC. 201. CROP NUTRIENT USE AND PRECISION AGRICULTURE
PRACTICE ADOPTION ASSISTANCE.
(a) Payments.--During the period beginning on the date of
enactment of this section and ending on September 30, 2023,
the Secretary shall make payments under this section to
producers----
(1) to assist in reducing the costs associated with the
utilization of crop nutrients; or
(2) to adopt precision agriculture practices to address
the utilization of crop nutrients or water availability.
(b) Amount.--
(1) In general.--A payment to a producer under this
section shall not exceed 100 percent of the costs of the
activity for which the assistance is provided.
(2) Cost Share.--If the Secretary determines that a
producer is receiving other Federal funds for the activity
for which the assistance is provided, a payment to the
producer under this section shall be in an amount that does
not, in combination with such other funds, exceed 100 percent
of the costs of such activity.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2022 and 2023.
SEC. 202. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title shall be construed as a conservation
or environmental program within the meaning of section 5(g)
of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C.
714c(g)).
TITLE III--AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEM SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE AND
CRISIS RESPONSE TASK FORCE
SEC. 301. AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEM SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE
AND CRISIS RESPONSE TASK FORCE.
(a) In General.--Subtitle B of title II of the Department
of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6931 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 229. AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEM SUPPLY CHAIN
RESILIENCE AND CRISIS RESPONSE TASK FORCE.
``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
establish within the
[[Page H5616]]
Department an Agriculture and Food System Supply Chain
Resilience and Crisis Response Task Force (in this section
referred to as the `Task Force').
``(b) Mission.--The mission of the Task Force shall be
to--
``(1) help to promote the leadership of the United States
with respect to the stability of the agriculture and food
system supply chain;
``(2) encourage a government-wide approach through
partnerships and collaboration with the private sector, labor
organizations, the governments of countries that are allies
or key international partners of the United States, States or
political subdivisions thereof, and Tribal governments in
order to--
``(A) promote the resilience of the agriculture and food
system supply chain; and
``(B) identify, prepare for, and respond to shocks to the
agriculture and food system supply chain;
``(3) monitor the resilience, diversity, security, and
strength of the agriculture and food system supply chain;
``(4) support the availability of agriculture and food
system supply chain goods for domestic manufacturers,
domestic producers, and domestic enterprises in the United
States and in countries that are allies or key international
partners;
``(5) assist the Federal Government in preparing for and
responding to shocks to the agriculture and food system
supply chain;
``(6) support the creation of jobs with competitive wages
in the United States agriculture and food system sector; and
``(7) coordinate executive branch actions necessary to
carry out the functions described in paragraphs (1) through
(6).
``(c) Special Advisor on Supply Chain Resilience and
Crisis Response.--The head of the Task Force shall be the
Special Advisor on Supply Chain Resilience and Crisis
Response (in this section, referred to as the `Special
Advisor') who shall be appointed by the Secretary.
``(d) Agricultural and Food System Supply Chain
Evaluation and Report.--
``(1) Evaluation.--The Special Advisor, in consultation
with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of
Transportation, shall conduct an evaluation of the stability
and reliability of the agriculture and food system supply
chain. The evaluation shall focus on the items listed in
subsection (b).
``(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 270 days after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Special
Advisor shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate a report on the evaluation
conducted under subsection (a) that includes the following:
``(A) An evaluation of--
``(i) the strengths of the agriculture and food system
supply chain;
``(ii) the weaknesses of the agriculture and food system
supply chain;
``(iii) current and potential future critical bottlenecks
in the agriculture and food system supply chain, including
transportation bottlenecks in the distribution of
agricultural inputs, processed and unprocessed food and food
input products, and consumer-ready food products;
``(iv) workforce challenges and opportunities in the
agriculture and food system supply chain; and
``(v) the overall stability and reliability of the
agriculture and food system supply chain.
``(B) A discussion of existing Federal legal barriers, if
any, that negatively impact the stability and reliability of
the agriculture and food system supply chain.
``(C) Specific recommendations to improve the security,
safety, and resilience of the agriculture and food system
supply chain, including recommendations that address
challenges identified under paragraph (1) and that also
address--
``(i) long-term strategies;
``(ii) industry best practices;
``(iii) risk-mitigation actions to prevent future
bottlenecks and vulnerabilities at all levels of the
agriculture and food system supply chain; and
``(iv) legislative and regulatory actions that would
positively impact the security and resilience of the
agriculture and food system supply chain.
``(e) Termination.--The Task Force shall terminate on the
earlier of--
``(1) the date on which the report required by subsection
(d) is submitted; or
``(2) September 30, 2023.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 7014(b)), as amended by section 101, is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) The authority of the Secretary to establish in the
Department the Agriculture and Food System Supply Chain
Resilience and Crisis Response Task Force in accordance with
section 229.''.
TITLE IV--BIOFUEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND AGRICULTURE PRODUCT MARKET
EXPANSION
SEC. 401. BIOFUEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND AGRICULTURE PRODUCT
MARKET EXPANSION.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to
amounts otherwise available, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $200,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2022 and 2023, to remain available until
expended, to carry out this section.
(b) Use of Funds.--The Secretary shall use the amounts
made available pursuant to subsection (a) to provide grants,
on a competitive basis, to eligible entities described in
subsection (c)--
(1) to install, retrofit, or otherwise upgrade fuel
dispensers or pumps and related equipment, storage tank
system components, and other infrastructure required at a
location to ensure the environmentally safe availability of
fuel containing ethanol blends at levels greater than 10
percent (as determined by the Secretary) or fuel containing
biodiesel blends at levels greater than 5 percent (as
determined by the Secretary); and
(2) to build and retrofit distribution systems for
ethanol blends, traditional and pipeline biodiesel terminal
operations (including rail lines), and home heating oil
distribution centers or equivalent entities--
(A) to blend biodiesel; and
(B) to carry ethanol and biodiesel.
(c) Eligible Entities.--Entities eligible to receive a
grant under this section are transportation fueling
facilities and distribution facilities, including fueling
stations, convenience stores, hypermarket retailer fueling
stations, fleet facilities, as well as fuel terminal
operations, midstream partners, and heating oil distribution
facilities or equivalent entities.
(d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the total cost
of carrying out a project for which a grant is provided under
this section shall be not more than 75 percent.
(e) Limitation.--The Secretary may not limit the amount
of funding an eligible entity may receive under this section,
except that such funding is subject to the availability of
appropriations.
TITLE V--YEAR-ROUND FUEL CHOICE
SEC. 501. ETHANOL WAIVER.
Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (f)(4)--
(A) by striking ``(4) The Administrator, upon'' and
inserting the following:
``(4) Waiver.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator, on''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Reid vapor pressure.--A fuel or fuel additive that
has been granted a waiver under subparagraph (A) prior to
January 1, 2017, and meets all the conditions of that waiver
other than any limitations of the waiver with respect to Reid
Vapor Pressure, may be introduced into commerce if the fuel
or fuel additive meets all other applicable Reid Vapor
Pressure requirements.''; and
(2) in subsection (h)--
(A) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by
inserting ``or more'' after ``10 percent''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``additional
alcohol or''; and
(B) in paragraph (5)(A), by inserting ``or more'' after
``10 percent''.
TITLE VI--PRODUCING RESPONSIBLE ENERGY AND CONSERVATION INCENTIVES AND
SOLUTIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (PRECISE)
SEC. 601. CONSERVATION LOAN AND LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
Section 304 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1924) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(3), by redesignating subparagraphs
(F) and (G) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively, and
inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) the adoption of precision agriculture practices,
and the acquisition of precision agriculture technology;'';
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'';
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) producers who use the loans to adopt precision
agriculture practices or acquire precision agriculture
technology, including adoption or acquisition for the purpose
of participating in the environmental quality incentives
program under subchapter A of chapter 4 of subtitle D of
title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985.'';
(3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) 90 percent of the principal amount of the loan in
the case of--
``(A) a producer that is a qualified socially
disadvantaged farmer or rancher or a beginning farmer or
rancher; or
``(B) loans that are used for the purchase of precision
agriculture technology.''; and
(4) in subsection (f)--
(A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Geographic diversity.--The Secretary''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Coordination with nrcs.--In making or guaranteeing
loans under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that
there is coordination between the Farm Service Agency and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service.''.
SEC. 602. ASSISTANCE TO RURAL ENTITIES.
Section 310B(a)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) expanding precision agriculture practices,
including by financing equipment and farm-wide broadband
connectivity, in order to promote best-practices, reduce
costs, and improve the environment.''.
SEC. 603. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.
(a) Definitions.--Section 1240A(6)(B)(v) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-
[[Page H5617]]
1(6)(B)(v)) is amended by inserting ``(including the adoption
of precision agriculture practices and the acquisition of
precision agriculture technology)'' after ``planning''.
(b) Payments.--
(1) Other payments.--Section 1240B(d)(6) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-2(d)(6)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``A producer shall'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) Payments under this subtitle.--A producer shall'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Conservation loan and loan guarantee program
payments.--
``(i) In general.--A producer receiving payments for
practices on eligible land under the program may also receive
a loan or loan guarantee under section 304 of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to cover costs
for the same practices on the same land.
``(ii) Notice to producer.--The Secretary shall inform a
producer participating in the program in writing of the
availability of a loan or loan guarantee under section 304 of
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act as it relates
to costs of implementing practices under this program.''.
(2) Increased payments for high-priority practices.--
Section 1240B(d)(7) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3839aa-2(d)(7)) is amended, in the subsection heading,
by inserting ``State-determined'' before ``high-priority''.
(3) Increased payments for precision agriculture.--
Section 1240B(d) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-2(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Increased payments for precision agriculture.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the Secretary may increase the
amount that would otherwise be provided for a practice under
this subsection to not more than 90 percent of the costs
associated with adopting precision agriculture practices and
acquiring precision agriculture technology.''.
(c) Conservation Incentive Contracts.--Section
1240B(j)(2)(A)(i) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3839aa-2(j)(3)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting ``(which may
include the adoption of precision agriculture practices and
the acquisition of precision agriculture technology)'' after
``incentive practices''.
SEC. 604. CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.
(b) Supplemental Payments for Resource-Conserving Crop
Rotations and Advanced Grazing Management.--Section 1240L(d)
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-24(d)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``and Advanced
Grazing Management'' and inserting ``, Advanced Grazing
Management, and Precision Agriculture'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; or'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) precision agriculture.''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or advanced grazing
management'' and inserting ``, advanced grazing management,
or precision agriculture''.
SEC. 605. DELIVERY OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 1242(f) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3842(f)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Soil health planning.--The Secretary shall
emphasize the use of third-party providers in providing
technical assistance for soil health planning, including
planning related to the use of cover crops, precision
conservation management, comprehensive nutrient management
planning, and other innovative plans.''.
TITLE VII--BUTCHER BLOCK ACT
SEC. 701. ASSISTANCE FOR NEW AND EXPANDED LIVESTOCK OR
POULTRY PROCESSORS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may make or guarantee a
loan for the purpose of--
(1) increasing capacity of livestock and poultry
processing, facilitating economic opportunity for livestock
and poultry producers through processing activities, and
diversifying processing ownership;
(2) increasing the customer base or revenue returns of
livestock and poultry producers through investment in
processing capacity;
(3) improving, developing, or financing livestock and
poultry processing capacity or employment including through
the financing of working capital; or
(4) promoting the interstate trade and local sales of
processed livestock and poultry by financing improvements to
meet relevant Federal, State, and local regulatory standards.
(b) Eligibility; General Limitations.--
(1) Eligible recipient.--An entity shall be eligible for
a loan or guarantee under this section if the entity is--
(A) a public, private, or cooperative organization
organized on a for-profit or nonprofit basis;
(B) an Indian tribe on a Federal or State reservation, or
any other federally recognized Indian tribal group; or
(C) an individual.
(2) Facility location.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
a facility constructed, expanded, modified, refurbished, or
re-equipped with proceeds from a loan made or guaranteed
under this section shall be in a rural area.
(B) Exception.--A facility constructed, expanded,
modified, refurbished, or re-equipped with proceeds from a
loan made or guaranteed under this section may be in a non-
rural area if--
(i) the primary use of the loan involved is for the
facility, and the facility will increase the customer base or
revenue returns of livestock and poultry producers that are
located within 300 miles of the facility;
(ii) the loan involved will be used to increase the
capacity in livestock and poultry processing in a region; and
(iii) the principal amount of the loan involved does not
exceed $50,000,000.
(C) Rural area defined.--In this paragraph, the term
``rural area'' has the meaning given the term in section
343(a)(13) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
(7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)).
(3) Limitations.--
(A) Limitation on amount of loan involved.--A loan of
more than $50,000,000 may not be made or guaranteed under
this section.
(B) Limitation on eligibility.--A loan may not be made or
guaranteed under this section to an entity that is owned in
partnership or in whole by--
(i) a foreign entity; or
(ii) an entity that currently processes over 5 percent of
the daily harvest of any species.
(c) Special Rules Applicable With Respect to
Cooperatives.--
(1) Limitation on amount of loan involved.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(3), a
loan of not more than $100,000,000 may be made or guaranteed
for a cooperative organization under this section.
(B) Conditions applicable if loan involved is for more
than $50,000,000.--A loan of more than $50,000,000 may not be
made or guaranteed for a cooperative organization under this
section unless the loan is used to carry out a project that
significantly increases the livestock and poultry processing
in a region, where insufficient processing capacity exists,
as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Intangible assets.--
(A) In general.--In determining whether a cooperative
organization is eligible for a loan or guarantee under this
section, the Secretary may consider the market value of a
properly appraised brand name, patent, or trademark of the
cooperative.
(B) Accounts receivable.--In the sole discretion of the
Secretary, if the Secretary determines that the action would
not create or otherwise contribute to an unreasonable risk of
default or loss to the Federal Government, the Secretary may
take accounts receivable as security for the obligations
entered into in connection with a loan made or guaranteed
under this section, and a borrower may use accounts
receivable as collateral to secure such a loan.
(3) Purchase of cooperative stock.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may make or guarantee a
loan in accordance with this section to an individual farmer
or rancher for the purpose of purchasing capital stock of a
farmer or rancher cooperative undertaking an eligible project
under this section.
(B) Processing contracts during initial period.--A
cooperative described in subparagraph (A) with respect to
which a farmer or rancher receives a guarantee to purchase
stock under subparagraph (A) may contract for services to
fulfill any eligible purpose under this section, during the
5-year period beginning on the date the cooperative commences
operations, in order to provide adequate time for the
planning and construction of the processing facility of the
cooperative.
(C) Financial information.--A farmer or rancher from whom
the Secretary requires financial information as a condition
of making or guaranteeing a loan under subparagraph (A) shall
provide the information in the manner generally required by
commercial agricultural lenders in the geographical area in
which the farmer or rancher is located.
(d) Conditions Applicable With Respect to Using Loan
Involved for Refinancing.--A borrower may use 25 percent of a
loan made or guaranteed under this section to refinance a
loan made for a purpose described in subsection (a) if--
(1) the borrower is current and performing with respect
to the loan to be refinanced;
(2) the borrower has not defaulted on any payment
required to be made with respect to the loan to be
refinanced;
(3) none of the collateral for the loan to be refinanced
has been converted; and
(4) there is adequate security or full collateral for the
loan to be refinanced.
(e) Loan Appraisal.--The Secretary may require that any
appraisal made in connection with a loan made or guaranteed
under this section be conducted by a specialized appraiser
that uses standards that are similar to standards used for
similar purposes in the private sector, as determined by the
Secretary.
(f) Preference.--In making or guaranteeing a loan under
this section, the Secretary shall give a preference to
applicants that have experience in livestock and poultry
processing and can quickly scale-up to increase overall
processing capacity in the region involved.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to
amounts otherwise available, there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2023 through 2025.
SEC. 702. NEW AND EXPANDING LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY PROCESSING
GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to--
(1) expand, diversify, and increase capacity in livestock
or poultry processing activities;
(2) improve compliance with livestock and poultry
processing statutes (including the regulations issued
thereunder), such as the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 661) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 454);
(3) identify and reduce barriers to entry for new
livestock and poultry processors; or
[[Page H5618]]
(4) update, expand, or otherwise improve existing
facilities.
(b) Eligible Grantees.--An entity shall be eligible for a
grant under this section if the entity is--
(1) a governmental entity;
(2) a public, private, or cooperative organization
organized on a for-profit or nonprofit basis; or
(3) an Indian tribe on a Federal or State reservation or
any other federally recognized Indian tribal group.
(c) Use of Funds.--An entity to which a grant is made
under this section may use the grant funds to establish or
support new or expanded livestock or poultry processing
activity, or other activity which will increase the customer
base or revenue returns of livestock and poultry producers,
by undertaking a project, that--
(1) identifies and analyzes business opportunities,
including feasibility studies as required for
creditworthiness;
(2) identifies, trains, and provides technical assistance
to existing or prospective rural entrepreneurs and managers
or processing facilities;
(3) provides technical assistance to gain compliance with
Federal, State, or local regulations;
(4) conducts regional, community, and local economic
development planning and coordination, and leadership
development; or
(5) establishes a center for training, technology, and
trade that will provide training to livestock or poultry
processing employees.
(d) Preference.--In awarding grants under this section,
the Secretary shall give a preference to applicants that have
experience in livestock and poultry processing and can
quickly scale-up to increase overall processing capacity in
the region involved.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to
amounts otherwise available, there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2023 through 2025.
TITLE VIII--LOWER FOOD AND FUEL COSTS SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2022
The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes, namely:
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Processing, Research, and Marketing
office of the secretary
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Office of the Secretary'',
$200,000,000, to remain available until expended, to carry
out title IV Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act: Provided, That
the Secretary may use up to 5 percent of amounts made
available under this heading in this title for administrative
costs, including salaries and expenses, research, data
collection, and other associated costs, for carrying out such
title IV: Provided further, That amounts made available for
administrative costs pursuant to the preceding proviso may be
transferred to ``Rural Development Programs--Rural
Development--Salaries and Expenses'' for the purposes
specified in such proviso.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE
Sec. 801. In addition to amounts otherwise available,
there is appropriated to the Department of Agriculture,
$500,000,000, to remain available until expended, to carry
out title II, of which up to 5 percent may be used by the
Secretary to provide technical assistance under such title II
of the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act.
Sec. 802. Each amount appropriated or made available by
this title is in addition to amounts otherwise appropriated
for the fiscal year involved.
Sec. 803. Unless otherwise provided for by this title,
the additional amounts appropriated by this title to
appropriations accounts shall be available under the
authorities and conditions applicable to such appropriations
accounts for fiscal year 2022.
Sec. 804. Each amount provided by this title is
designated by the Congress as being for an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 4001(a)(1) and section
4001(b) of S. Con. Res. 14 (117th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2022.
Sec. 805. (a) Statutory PAYGO Scorecards.--The budgetary
effects of this title shall not be entered on either PAYGO
scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the
Statutory Pay As-You-Go Act of 2010.
(b) Senate PAYGO Scorecards.--The budgetary effects of
this title shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard
maintained for purposes of section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71
(115th Congress).
(c) Classification of Budgetary Effects.--Notwithstanding
Rule 3 of the Budget Scorekeeping Guidelines set forth in the
joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference
accompanying Conference Report 105-217 and section 250(c)(7)
and (c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, the budgetary effects of this title
shall be estimated for purposes of section 251 of such Act
and as appropriations for discretionary accounts for purposes
of the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations pursuant
to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
This title may be cited as the ``Lower Food and Fuel
Costs Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Agriculture or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 16, 2022, on page H5618, in the second column, the
following appeared: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) each will controll 30
minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Scott). Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
The online version has been corrected to read: The gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. David Scott) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Thompson) each will controll 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott). Mr. DAVID SCOTT of
Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
========================= END NOTE =========================
I rise in strong support of H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs
Act, and I encourage my colleagues to support this package that is
comprised of multiple bills that our House Agriculture Committee has
advanced in a strong, bipartisan manner.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the last 2 years have led to drastic
fluctuations in prices. Whether you look at the ongoing impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic or the global disruptions associated with Putin's war
in Ukraine, American farmers, American ranchers, and consumers are,
right now, facing terrible, increasing costs on the farm, at the
grocery store, and at the gas station.
Our Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act tackles these price increases head
on by increasing competition, options at the pump, and by providing
needed support for America's agriculture sector at every stop of our
food supply chain.
Mr. Speaker, our package includes four main pillars.
One: Ensuring robust competition in the meat and poultry sector.
Two: Lowering costs at the grocery store by lowering costs for our
farmers and ranchers.
Three: By empowering our farmers to help provide fuel choices and
lower prices at our gas stations.
Four: Strengthening the food supply chain.
Going further into each of these pillars, first, this package will
establish an Office of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters
in the Agriculture Secretary's office.
When we held a hearing, Mr. Speaker, it was a very powerful hearing.
It was the largest viewing audience for a hearing in the history of our
Agriculture Committee.
We heard overwhelming evidence that continuing the status quo when it
comes to enforcement will not provide more desperately needed
competition and fairness within our meat and poultry industries.
So we believe earnestly that the USDA and their expertise in
agriculture issues gives them a strong footing to investigate the
competitiveness in our meat and poultry sectors and to enforce existing
laws to ensure a fair playing field for our family farmers, ranchers,
and consumers.
Mr. Speaker, we were informed at that hearing that right now, we are
losing 17,000 ranching farms every year. This has to stop.
Our bill also includes a bipartisan provision that will support the
creation and expansion of processing capacity for small- and medium-
sized producers to help alleviate this terrible, threatening
consolidation just to a handful of four meatpacking companies. This is
the core of this legislation.
Our second pillar addresses a key piece in the puzzle of rising
prices. At the grocery store, there have been record increases in input
costs for agricultural producers, with fertilizer prices for both
specialty and row crop producers skyrocketing. This bill will help
reduce their input costs so planning decisions are not impacted.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of fertilizer costs, it is very important for
the Nation to know that right now, Russia produces and controls 66
percent of the fertilizer in the world. This needs to have serious,
serious attention.
Our second pillar of this legislative package is the puzzle of rising
prices.
Our third pillar addresses fuel costs, which is something that
impacts everyone, whether you are paying more at the gas pump or seeing
increasing prices in the grocery store from higher trucking and
transportation costs.
This package addresses these concerns in a way that empowers our
farmers and provides more choice and lower prices for our consumers at
the gas pump and at the grocery store.
Mr. Speaker, our biofuels adoption and investment helps reduce our
reliance on foreign oil and the supply shocks facing our gasoline
supply, while also bolstering a revenue stream
[[Page H5619]]
for our farmers and producers across the country.
Bolstering our use of ethanol from E10 to E15 will not impact the
environment, our Environmental Protection Agency confirms this, nor
will it slow down the rollout of electric vehicles.
This vital package of bills makes much-needed improvements in our
supply chain. A series of shocks to our beef supply chain, combined
with a concentrated processing infrastructure, resulted in high prices
for meat at our grocery stores and lower prices for our producers,
farmers, and ranchers.
Specifically, one provision calls for the formation of an
Agricultural and Food System Supply Chain Resilience and Crisis
Response Task Force to examine our food supply chain and report back to
us here in Congress on the strengths and the weaknesses that exist.
I am extremely proud of the work of our House Agriculture Committee
members, both Democrats and Republicans, who have worked tirelessly to
put this strong bipartisan bill together.
We have garnered for this bill extremely important bipartisan
participation. This is what our Nation is hungry for; Democrats and
Republicans working together to bring down these high costs for our
food and our fuel. This bill is a bill that our American people want
and deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I note that several of the sections in this
bill codify or are complementary to ongoing and planned
programs that the Department of Agriculture is carrying out
or planning to carry out with existing authorities and
funding. The intent behind passage of this bill is to be
additive to those efforts and is in no way intended to limit
or pause those programs and efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7606 because, simply
put, this bill does nothing in the immediate future to lower food and
fuel costs.
Long before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, America's farm families and
consumers were struggling with fractured supply chains, skyrocketing
input costs, and historic levels of inflation, each of which continue
to contribute to increased food prices and diminished inventories.
Despite these crises, Democrats have neglected to take serious action
to incentivize increased American production. In fact, we are here
today to debate a bill that compounds the situation, further limiting
American farmers' abilities to meet global food demand and doubling
down on the idea that more spending and big government will feed the
world.
Adding insult to injury, the White House has been quick to blame the
private sector and alleged industry concentration for the current
crisis.
Economists across the spectrum--including former Obama and Clinton
administration officials--have dismissed the strategy as misleading, at
best, or otherwise, blatantly political.
So it is not surprising that at the behest of the White House, we are
debating a package where the anchor piece of legislation perpetuates a
tired narrative of blame, duplicates existing authorities, ignores
industry and producers, and undermines the Department of Justice.
It is also not surprising the party of defund the police also has
become the party of more cops for cows. At every turn, this
administration has obsessively pointed the finger at the packing
industry, in particular, blaming them almost singlehandedly for rising
food costs.
They have done so via blog posts, contrived public events, and press
briefings, all without any acknowledgment of the culpability of their
own reckless spending and heavy-handed regulatory agenda.
My Democratic colleagues have dutifully played along, executing
sensationalized hearings and political theatrics designed to support
unvetted and controversial bills.
Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder many of us question the seriousness of
the bill before us today. If this were a serious exercise, my
Democratic colleagues would not have paired such an egregious example
of legislative overreach with several other very thoughtful, very
bipartisan bills.
If this were a serious exercise, my Democrat colleagues would not
have added two unvetted Democrat amendments that are more about
political point-scoring than genuine near-term policy solutions.
If this were a serious exercise, my Democrat colleagues would have
worked with Republicans to form a concrete, immediate policy solution
with a chance of consideration in the Senate.
Now, I know both parties understand the gravity of these issues.
While we may have disagreements on policy, I was confident that we
could find common-ground solutions, if given the opportunity.
{time} 0930
I am dumbfounded as to why Democratic leadership would choose this
moment--when consumers are deciding between gas in their cars or food
on their tables--as an attempt to score political points, especially on
the heels of a nearly 9 percent increase in consumer prices, the worst
this Nation has seen since the Carter administration.
So, Republicans forged ahead, and we developed solutions. Earlier
this week, Leader McCarthy and I, along with nearly 100 of our
Republican colleagues, sent a letter to President Biden outlining
administrative actions that he could take immediately to mitigate
rising input costs, and strengthen the role that American agriculture
plays in global food stability.
And yesterday, I, along with many of those same Members, introduced
H.R. 8069, the Reducing Farm Input Costs and Barriers to Domestic
Production Act. This bill would reverse many of the more harmful
regulatory burdens spearheaded by this administration, address
escalating input costs, and provide certainty to farmers, ranchers,
agribusinesses, and other entities across the food and agriculture
supply chain.
Specifically, the bill provides relief from EPA's unprecedented
actions related to pesticides and other vital crop protection tools;
offers clarity related to WOTUS regulations; rescinds the SEC's harmful
proposed rule on climate-related disclosures; reinstates the 2020 NEPA
streamlining; and requires an economic analysis on the costs and the
benefits of GIPSA rules. These are all actions which would provide
immediate relief to our farm families and households across the globe,
and they all were rejected by the Rules Committee majority as
amendments to the bill before us.
The letter and this bill stand in stark contrast to what we have seen
from the White House and the Democrats in Congress and their efforts to
scapegoat private industry for skyrocketing gas prices and sustained
supply chain failures.
So, in short, the crises we are facing cannot and will not be
mitigated with unfunded mandates, duplicative authorities, politicized
agencies, and Big Government, all of which are laced into H.R. 7606.
I remain opposed to this bill and the process which got us here but
stand willing to work with my colleagues on commonsense, near-term
solutions to provide immediate relief to farmers, ranchers, foresters,
and American consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 7606.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier), my good friend.
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to
speak on this important bill, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act.
American families are struggling. They are continuing to see rising
gas prices even as oil and gas companies are making record profits.
Higher prices at the grocery store are making it harder to put food
on the table, and a lot of this is because farmers are struggling with
increasing fuel prices. Costs and availability of transportation to
both domestic and export markets continue to be a challenge for the
wheat, cherry, apple, and pear growers in my district.
[[Page H5620]]
This is a global problem, but it is a problem that we can take steps
to ease right here at home. This bill provides the resources to do just
that.
It addresses the cost of fuel by allowing year-round sales of higher
ethanol blends, which are consistently less expensive than higher
octane gas.
It addresses high food prices by helping farmers and helping our
supply chain.
Fertilizer costs are at record highs since most of our fertilizer is
typically sourced from Russia. This bill helps farmers spend less on
inputs without lowering crop yields.
We are paying skyrocketing prices for meat at the grocery store, but
farmers and ranchers don't see any of that additional profit because
four companies control 80 percent of U.S. meat processing. That is
unfair.
This bill expands the availability and capacity of meat processing
and will create new jobs, provide more options for small- and medium-
sized ranching operations, and help lower the cost of meat at the
grocery store.
Finally, addressing the cost of trucking and transportation will help
farmers get their crops to market.
The whole goal here is to make life a little easier for the people we
represent, to help you fill up your tank and feed your family. As the
only member on the House Agriculture Committee from the Northwest, I
will continue to do all that I can to support farmers and lower costs
for American families.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the former chairman
of the full House Agriculture Committee, who continues to this day to
be an incredible advocate for agriculture and a mentor of mine as I
have worked my way into this leadership role.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7606 because
American farmers and ranchers deserve real assistance, real relief,
real policy solutions.
To understand my opposition, you must understand the part of the
country that I represent and was raised in. The Third District of
Oklahoma was the epicenter of the drought, the Dust Bowl, and the
economic depression of the 1930s. This was a time when horrible weather
conditions collided with misguided Federal ag and misguided Federal
monetary policy to create an environment that profoundly changed the
region that my family has called home for over 120 years.
I was raised on these stories, and it was their experiences that
shaped my view on what the role of the Federal Government should be.
The Federal Government should be passing and enacting policies that
help people and businesses, not hinder them. Unfortunately, the Biden
administration and House Democrats seem to not hold that same view.
During the past 5 years, American farmers and ranchers have weathered
volatile world markets, devastating natural disasters, prolonged
droughts, supply chain disruptions, ever-increasing input costs, and
soaring inflation.
Yet, the only thing the Biden administration and House Democrats seem
interested in doing is increasing regulatory burdens, limiting access
to fuel, and passing spending packages that fuel inflation.
Mr. Speaker, if House Democrats were truly interested in providing
relief for American farmers and ranchers, they would join my Republican
colleagues and me in calling for the Biden administration to reinstate
the Trump-era Waters of the United States rule and rescind the Biden
administration's WOTUS rule.
If Democrats were interested in reducing the cost of farm inputs like
fertilizer and fuel, they would work with us to restore and expand
domestic energy production. They would join us in calling for the Biden
administration to rescind the SEC's proposed rule on climate-related
disclosure.
This rule is not only a ploy to divert capital away from traditional
energy investments, it also requires farmers, regardless of size, to
track and report environmental data to public companies with which they
work.
Finally, House Democrats are touting this bill as a solution to the
issue of consolidation in the meatpacking industry. As we all know,
DOJ--yes, the Department of Justice--is in the middle of an ongoing
investigation into the meatpacking industry, an investigation that was
launched under the Trump administration.
I feel strongly that if there is collusion, manipulation, or other
wrongdoing by packers, then the existing law should be enforced under
the existing authorities at USDA and DOJ. There are civil and criminal
penalties if violations are found. Changing those authorities or laws
in the middle of an ongoing investigation only helps to confuse and
complicate the eventual DOJ findings.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this messaging bill and
join with me in calling for real solutions for American farmers and
ranchers.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lower Food
and Fuel Costs Act.
Across the country, workers are calling out sick because of COVID,
truck deliveries and other shipments are facing delays, and people are
panic-buying, all leading to product shortages and soaring prices.
Yet, while we know the COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly challenged
our Nation's supply chain, we also know there are systemic imbalances
in our economy. Decreased competition, driven by market concentration,
has allowed companies to further drive up costs and their profits at
the expense of hardworking Americans in one of our most vulnerable
moments.
In the beef-processing market, for example, four dominant companies
control 85 percent of the market. The four largest poultry processing
companies made up more than half of the market in 2015, up from 35
percent of the market in 1986.
We have seen this trend all across our economy, as large corporations
have squeezed out independent businesses, eliminating competition. As a
result, hardworking Americans throughout this country are paying more
as food prices skyrocket, particularly for meat.
Provisions included in the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act will help us
tackle this very issue and help bring prices down across the board.
The Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act and the Butcher Block
Act, for example, will help strengthen our investigatory and
enforcement tools to address market competition issues while also
investing in additional meat processing capacity.
The PRECISE Act will improve farming efficiency and help ensure
farmers' resiliency to future disruptions in fertilizer supply.
The Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Investment and Market Expansion Act
and the Year-Round Fuel Choice Act will help drive down prices at the
pump for Americans and increase available fuel supply.
These are just a few of the provisions in this comprehensive package
that will help ease the economic burden on American families and help
create an economy that works for all of us.
I urge my colleagues to come together to help hardworking Americans
by driving down these costs and supporting this legislation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should see an extension, a little bigger of
that poster that we saw there. That concentration occurred because of
exactly what we are seeing today of government and Democrats leveling
regulations. It was regulations that caused the concentration within
the meatpacking industry. What happened when you put on more
regulations, small- and medium-sized processors weren't able to
continue to work. They couldn't cope with the compliance costs. They
just couldn't handle those increased regulations.
Today, we are seeing not just additional regulations, but a whole new
police officer being created under the poison pill within this
legislation, special investigator bill.
I would argue that maybe we ought to blow that chart up a little more
so we can see and project just how much more concentration occurs when
we force more small- and medium-sized processors out of the business.
It will result in increased concentration with this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Mann), a
[[Page H5621]]
great member of the Agriculture Committee who represents the Big First
Congressional District.
Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R.
7606.
I support our country's farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers
because they are the lifeblood of America. They keep us food and fuel
secure and therefore free and self-determining as a Nation.
I cosponsor the Year-Round Fuel Choice Act, which would address
limitations on Reid vapor pressure and allow for producers to supply,
and consumers to purchase, E15 year-round. I have supported this
measure long before my time in Congress, and I will continue to be a
strong proponent of year-round E15. A temporary waiver is not enough.
We must make this decision permanent and provide certainty to
producers. That bill is now part of H.R. 7606.
I cosponsor the Butcher Block Act, which would codify the authority
for the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants and loans to expand
meat and poultry processing capacity. I support consumer choice. That
bill is now part of H.R. 7606.
In the House Agriculture Committee, I voted in favor of four other
bills that are now part of H.R. 7606, but today's vote is disappointing
because House Democrats ignored an effort made by Mr. Davis and others,
one I am proud to cosponsor, to include an amendment separating these
good pro-agriculture bills from a poison pill. Included in H.R. 7606 is
a provision that would create a politically charged special
investigator office at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
investigate and prosecute food producers in America.
You heard that right. The original H.R. 7606 and a provision in
today's so-called Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act would create a new
office at USDA to investigate and prosecute the people who work to feed
us. I represent the Big First District of Kansas, which ranks number
one in the country for the value of sales of cattle and calves at more
than $9 billion annually. We see the entire beef supply chain in the
Big First, from cow-calf producers to cattle feeders and packers. Under
the Packers and Stockyards Division at USDA, all of those players, all
of them, are already subject to strict inspection. Under H.R. 7606,
they would be subject to a type of politically charged scrutiny we
expect of no other related business.
Do you think that a Democratic-controlled Congress and USDA would
stop there? No. H.R. 7606 would set the horrible precedent for
political administrations to inspect and prosecute anything and anyone
they disagree with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, today it is packing facilities, tomorrow it is
cornfields and biofuel facilities, or wheat growers and milling
stations. I support farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers in
this country, and I am disappointed this poison pill is included.
{time} 0945
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I want to clear up something that the gentleman just said. It is very
important. The United States Department of Agriculture is the proper
source to deal with this investigation. It needs to be investigated per
the will of the American people, and there is no agency better
equipped, better qualified, to find out what is going wrong.
According to the USDA, the language is clear on the special
investigator being a career employee. It only specifies that the
position be appointed by the Secretary and based on the qualifications
of the individual.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
Craig), a member of the House Committee on Agriculture.
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country are justifiably
frustrated by the higher prices they are experiencing at the pump, in
the grocery store, and across the board.
Right now, working families in every district across this country are
crying out for relief. They are tired of political games, and they are
tired of partisan attacks. Our constituents don't want Congress in a
food fight. They want compromise, and they want solutions.
My friends, today, we have a bipartisan, commonsense solution at our
fingertips.
The Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act will lift up our constituents by
lowering prices at the grocery store aisle and at the pump and creating
a situation where we are seen as acting together.
My provision, the Year-Round Fuel Choice Act, will allow for the
year-round sale of homegrown biofuels, which can sell for as much as 40
cents less per gallon than traditional gasoline. Why would we deny that
low-cost alternative to working families who are so desperate for
savings?
My Strengthening the Agriculture and Food Supply Chain Act will help
lower prices at the grocery store by getting products from ships to
shelves faster and shoring up our food supply chain for future
generations. My friends, why would we deny these critical savings to
our constituents who are simply trying to put food on the table?
The American people want action. They are calling for us to use every
tool at our disposal to fight inflation and lower costs. We must
respond to their call.
I appreciate the support of this package from my Democratic
colleagues and many of my Republican colleagues, and I encourage all of
you to vote ``yes.''
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
During the recent packer hearing, Chairman Scott mentioned that he
used a chart compiled of what really was cherry-picked data with zero
context to accuse all four of the major beef packing CEOs of price-
fixing and collusion.
The packing executives explained the multitudes of supply and demand
dynamics supporting the data, including the cyclical ebbs and flows of
cattle production. Each of them denied the chairman's accusation under
oath.
Despite their denial, this week at the Rules Committee, the chairman
accused the packers of lying under oath. According to the chairman, a
price-fixing scheme is the only plausible explanation for increased
meat prices. It is no wonder I have serious doubts about this
administration's ability to objectively carry out these new
authorities.
I agree with the chairman, who is a dear friend. We work well
together on well over 99 percent of everything that we engage on, just
not this particular poison pill today. USDA is the right place to be
the cop on the beat for this. In fact, they already are.
USDA already has an entire Packers and Stockyards Division charged
with enforcing the Packers and Stockyard Act that has been in place
since the 1930s. Based on the latest available data, they have filed
and closed almost 1,900 cases just in 2020 alone. The division already
consists of a team of seasoned attorneys, market specialists, and
auditors, and it has the option to pursue administrative enforcement
through USDA's Office of General Counsel before an administrative law
judge or through the Department of Justice in Federal court.
I agree the USDA is the place for oversight of the packing industry,
and it is already in place. This duplicative mandate with all the
issues it brings is not warranted.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Crawford), the vice ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people need to
understand two things. One, if you eat, you are involved in
agriculture. And, two, food security is national security. So, we keep
those things in mind as we have this conversation today. Everyone in
this room is involved in agriculture.
Despite that, we have before us today a bill that makes it more
difficult for our farmers and ranchers to carry out their primary
mission, which is to feed, clothe, and shelter 98 percent of the
population that is not engaged in agriculture. Two percent of Americans
provide for 100 percent of Americans and the rest of the world. This
bill doesn't truly address the challenges that they face every day.
Democrats would rather demonize producers in the private sector
instead of taking responsibility for the inflation that is changing the
lives of our
[[Page H5622]]
constituents every day everywhere in the country. Every day, our world
becomes more globalized and our economies become more interconnected.
As a result, the need for food security grows.
One day, Russia is weaponizing food in Ukraine, and the next day,
China is buying pieces of the American agriculture supply chain.
I have said it before and will say it again: Agriculture security is
national security, and we can no longer afford to stand by while our
adversaries exploit the supply chain and American food security
flounders under continued inflation inflicted by this administration.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7606. For those of us who
represent rural constituents, this should be the easiest ``no'' vote
you ever make.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Let me clarify something the ranking member said. Yes, I was able to
bring in all four CEOs of our meatpacking companies, and we were very
grateful that they accepted our invitation. But our ranking member made
a mistake. It wasn't all four that said in answer to my question about
whether or not they agreed or had any agreement on pricing in our meat
industry. Three said no; one said, ``Not to my knowledge.''
Now, you must understand what we are dealing with here and why just
that reply from them requires an investigation. That is what we are
here for. That is why we did the hearing, to bring those parties in.
We must act, Mr. Speaker. As I said before, we cannot continue to
lose 17,000 ranchers and farmers. Also, so many of them, thousands of
them, have not made a profit in 5 years. We have a problem.
In a report, the GAO noted that the USDA's investigations were
planned and conducted primarily by economists, without the formal
involvement of attorneys from USDA's Office of General Counsel, or the
OGC. As a result, a legal perspective that focused on assessing
potential violations was generally absent when investigations were
initiated and conducted. This is precisely why the special investigator
bill is so important, because it alleviates an issue that has not had
enough scrutiny and ensures that attorneys will be responsible for
looking into possible violations.
The GAO also found that the USDA's Packers and Stockyards Act, PSA,
investigations had not modernized to keep up with today's complex,
competition-related concerns, with consolidation at the heart of this
issue, nor had it implemented previous recommendations. It also
recommended that GIPSA and USDA's Office of General Counsel work more
closely together.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker from New Jersey, I thank Chairman Scott for
the time and all he has been doing with his committee to put this
excellent bill together.
Today, once again, in my opinion, the House is taking action to fight
high gas prices and protect consumers by empowering farmers to provide
homegrown fuel choices at the pump, an option that costs consumers 40
cents less per gallon.
At a time when Americans are paying record-high prices for gas, Big
Oil continues to exploit market instability caused by Russia's invasion
of Ukraine to rake in record profits.
Big Oil companies collectively made $41 billion in profits during the
first quarter of this year. Some of these were record highs; others
were the highest profits in over a decade.
It is abundantly clear that Big Oil companies are more interested in
funneling billions in profits to their shareholders and executives than
in addressing record-high gas prices for American consumers.
The House has to act, Mr. Speaker, to protect American families from
this profiteering. That is why we are here today, to preserve and
expand the availability of a cheaper and cleaner fuel option for the
driving public.
The Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act combats fuel prices by allowing for
the voluntary, year-round sale of gasoline containing 15 percent
ethanol, known as E15 or Unleaded 88. Blending more biofuels like
ethanol into gasoline displaces demand for petroleum, helping to bring
down gas prices for consumers.
Today, drivers are paying, on average, about 40 cents less per gallon
to fill up their tanks with E15. This fuel provides significant savings
for families during the summer driving season. Let's ensure it
continues to be available at gas stations across the country.
Increasing the availability of E15 protects Americans from volatile
global oil markets and eases the grip Big Oil has on American drivers.
By relying more on homegrown biofuels and less on fossil fuels, this
legislation insulates American drivers from dramatic global price
fluctuations, enhances our national security, creates local jobs, and
bolsters true energy independence. It is a win-win across the board. It
is one of the most powerful tools in our fight against global price
shocks and oil and gas profiteering.
E15 is also a cleaner fuel option that emits less carbon pollution
and burns cleaner than regular gasoline. Today's vote is also part of
our broader effort to bring down prices while cutting climate
pollution.
I thank Representatives Craig and Axne for their leadership on
preserving and expanding access to E15 across the country and Chairman
Scott, once again, for including these critical E15 provisions in this
package.
Mr. Speaker, let's help bring down gas prices at the pump, strengthen
our Nation's rural communities, and break the grip of Big Oil by
passing the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act today.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), a member of the Committee
on Agriculture.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate this morning reminds
me of something President Ronald Reagan once said. He said: Our friends
on the other side of the aisle, they know so much that just isn't so.
How interesting it is that the title of this package is the exact
opposite of what this legislation is going to do. It will do nothing to
bring down the cost of food and energy. Instead, it is making excuses
for the crises caused by the Biden administration's attacks on American
agriculture and energy.
Now, there are a few good pieces of bipartisan legislation in this
package, but our friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to allow
these bills to receive their individual votes. Instead, they are using
the good provisions here as pawns in their political messaging.
{time} 1000
One of the really harmful bills in this package, as has been
discussed, the Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act, creates a
duplicative office within the USDA that will only add to the regulatory
burden of our food processors across the country, and that is going to
increase costs.
The investigator would be granted independent litigation authority,
allowing for civil suits against packers at the whim of the Secretary
without even consulting with the DOJ. It should be noted, the DOJ
already launched an investigation into the ``Big Four'' for
anticompetitive practices in May of 2020 and has declined to provide
Congress with an update even 2 years into that investigation.
The bottom line is increasing regulation will raise food prices, not
make them more affordable. Our farm families need inputs at a fair
price. They need diesel prices to come down. They need to be able to
produce the food to feed this country and the world without the
government making it harder and harder day in and day out. That is why
this package must be defeated.
Rather than more regulation, we must unleash the full ability of
American production. We must work for our farm families and do what is
right and defeat this bill.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger), who is also the chair of
our Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of my
legislation, H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act.
Congress cannot shy away from addressing the urgent economic
challenges that face our local communities
[[Page H5623]]
and our entire country, and that challenge continues to be inflation.
We know how rising prices, consolidation across industries, and supply
chain challenges are impacting America's families, businesses, and
seniors, and as lawmakers, our job is to listen to the people we
represent and then respond with legislation that can help solve those
problems.
Indeed, this package, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act, is just
that. It is a compilation of bills put together by lawmakers who are
responding to their constituents. I have heard from the other side of
the aisle that, in fact, it would have been nice if we came together in
a bipartisan way. So I would note that my colleagues on the Republican
side of the aisle from Iowa, Arkansas, New York, Nebraska, Ohio,
Illinois, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Illinois, Iowa, Tennessee--it
feels like I am practicing State capitals with my fifth grader--
Nebraska, Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Illinois,
Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa,
Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, South
Dakota, Iowa, Iowa, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa,
Nebraska, Florida, Wyoming, Virginia, Minnesota, each of these are
individual Members of Congress from the Republican side of the aisle
who are leading on this issue.
In fact, two of the bills in this package are led by our Republican
colleagues, and I am proud that I have joined with Congressman Dusty
Johnson in support of the bipartisan Butcher Block Act. I am proud to
be his co-lead as he leads that important piece of legislation. It is a
commonsense step toward allowing American processors the ability to
expand their operations, launch a new business or just make sure they
are keeping--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, this is the first step towards lowering
meat prices, but in addition to increasing processing capacity for
American cattlemen and poultry producers, we need to go after
anticompetitive practices in the meat industry.
That is why I am proud that this package also includes the bipartisan
Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act. The bill would establish a
special investigator at USDA to investigate violations of our existing
antitrust laws that have been on the books for more than 100 years, and
I thank Congresswoman Miller-Meeks for co-leading this effort.
This bill has broad bipartisan support and bicameral support. So I
thank Senator Jon Tester, Senator Grassley, Republican; Senator John
Thune, Republican; Senator Hoeven, Republican; and Senator Rounds,
Republican, for joining with us in pushing this bill forward. It has
support from the U.S. Cattlemen's Association, and this bill is
responsive to the needs of the people I represent because the Virginia
Cattlemen's Association supports this bill, as does the National
Farmers Union.
Americans want lower meat prices both now and in the future. They
want lower gas prices and to make biofuels accessible to more
Americans. We have the opportunity to do that. I urge my colleagues to
support this package.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
this bill.
To suggest that this bill is a collaborative effort is simply
inaccurate. There could be a number of other ways to describe that as
well, but it is unfortunate that we are at a place where we could have
had an opportunity to advance some good legislation.
I am a supporter of the E15 bill. I have done a lot of work on this,
and not just because gas prices are high right now, but because I think
that E15 and allowing consumers more choices at the pump would actually
engage consumers as it relates to energy policy and energy products.
I do have serious concerns, though, as others have mentioned, about
provisions that the Democrats insisted be included in this bill, like
the new, very duplicative investigative authority at USDA.
Even more concerning to me is Democrats' continued strategy of
seeking to blame others for the situation on energy and the cost of
virtually everything in our economy rather than acknowledging that
President Biden's economic policies have actually created this mess.
Biden stimulus dollars have driven inflation. Biden's stimulus
dollars paid Americans not to return to work, therefore, worsening our
supply chain crisis. The President's executive orders canceling new
lease options and shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline have certainly
contributed to increased gas prices.
Real inflation relief legislation would actually reign in spending,
get more Americans back to work, provide broad regulatory relief, and
increase domestic energy production. This bill is certainly not it.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished Speaker of
the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I
commend him and the members of the committee, as we just heard from
Congresswoman Spanberger, for their very important work recognizing the
needs of America's working families with their kitchen table issues,
recognizing the needs in rural America for us to have legislation that
strengthens rural America's hand in the decisions that we make as we go
forward.
Mr. Speaker, as we gather here, the war continues in Ukraine. It is
an unprovoked, outrageous act of aggression on the part of Putin and
Russia invading the territorial borders of Ukraine.
At the same time, doing that has driven up prices here at home,
driven up prices at the pump; it is a Putin price at the pump. That is
the main reason, in the short period of time following the invasion of
Ukraine, the price at the pump went up its highest amount in a very
long time.
Russia is also a source of fertilizer, a big source of fertilizer to
our country, and of course, diminishing the supply coming in raises the
cost of fertilizer and contributes to the cost for our farmers, and of
course, then contributes to the price of food at the grocery store. It
is an important kitchen table issue.
Putin's price at the pump is exacerbating the skyrocketing costs
weighing heavily on our families. Again, since Russia began its saber-
rattling against Ukraine, gas prices in many places went up $2 per
gallon.
Meanwhile, the World Bank reports that global food prices in March
and April spiked 16 percent over the 2 months prior, and while Putin
works to fuel inflation today, the Democratic House--hopefully, in a
bipartisan way--takes a strong step to bring down crucial kitchen table
costs at the pump and grocery store and across the board.
Our Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act does precisely what the name
suggests in three major areas.
First, the bill brings down the costs for farmers in the field. As we
know, oil, gasoline is an important factor of production for farmers in
order for them to produce. The war in Ukraine has restricted the supply
of fertilizer, as I mentioned, and sent the costs through the roof. By
taking action to lower the costs on the farm, we lower the costs on the
shelf in the grocery store and on the kitchen table.
Second, this bill bolsters competition in the meatpacking industry,
and I thank Mr. Scott for his leadership. Cracking down on the market
power of big conglomerates and increasing competition will ensure
ranchers get a fair deal for their livestock while families get a good
price for meat and poultry.
Third, this bill will help make cheaper, cleaner homegrown biofuels
more widely available. This summer drivers who choose to fill up with
Unleaded 88 could save an average of 40 cents a gallon, and by making
this fuel more widely available it will unleash the power of America's
farmers to help break the grip of foreign autocrats on energy markets;
lower gas prices, while keeping our dollars here at home; and reduce
pollution because biofuels are cleaner than petroleum.
[[Page H5624]]
Today's action to lower food and fuel costs is the latest
manifestation of House Democrats' unyielding commitment to fight
inflation.
Last month, our majority voted to hold Big Oil accountable for price
gouging and war profiteering, which has kept energy prices excessively
high.
This week, we passed legislation to crack down on exorbitant ocean
shipping fees, leveling the playing field for American businesses and
lowering costs for American consumers. Proudly today, President Biden
will sign this legislation into law. It is called the Ocean Shipping
Reform Act of 2022.
As we speak, the Congress is hard at work on a bold, bipartisan,
bicameral competitiveness package to make more goods in America;
strengthen our supply chains; diversify our STEM workforce; and
reinvigorate research and development. We look forward to sending this
strong cost-cutting legislation to the President's desk.
Here is the thing: Inflation springs from higher costs. Higher costs
spring from shorter supply. Shorter supply is there because of COVID
preventing certain products from coming into our country, so short
supply. Short supply of factors of production coming into our country.
That is why the COMPETES Act is so important because it will make us
more independent, more self-sufficient on the products we need; for
example, chips. Chips are a very important part of that bill. To make a
car it takes 1,000 chips; an electric car, 2,000 chips. But we can't do
that manufacturing unless we have chips, and if other countries are
saving chips for themselves at home or the high fees of transporting
them make it just unaffordable to people, we need to make these chips
at home, and that is what the COMPETES Act enables us to do.
So lowering costs for our families; when we ran in 2018--just to
bring back promises made--we said we were going to lower costs by
lowering the costs of prescription drugs, and that is what we are in
the midst of doing now. We are going to lower costs in every way for
America's working families. That is what this legislation does here.
We are going to have bigger paychecks. And we have had, since
President Biden took office, working with the private sector and the
nonprofit sector and the public sector, 8 million jobs have been
created. Unemployment has been cut in half. Wages have gone up. That
also contributes to inflation, which must be addressed, and this
legislation is part of doing that.
So this legislation is a strong step in that direction, and I salute
the relentless leadership of the Agriculture chair, David Scott, and
the Energy and Commerce chair, Frank Pallone, who is an important part
of this, as well as Representatives Spanberger, Craig, Axne, and Harder
and the dedicated staff of both committees.
Together, they have assembled a package of popular bipartisan
legislation with a laser focus on fighting inflation.
{time} 1015
Make no mistake, a vote against this bill is a vote to keep the cost
of gas and groceries high, when we can do just the opposite by voting
for it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``yes'' vote.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), a strong agriculture advocate and
a leader in agriculture.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear: just because
Democrats named their bill the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act does not
mean this bill will achieve that goal.
The only thing it really achieves is a campaign talking point for
Democrats responding to constituents frustrated with higher prices at
the grocery store and the gas station caused by their reckless
spending.
Instead of wasting our valuable time debating this bill that will
never become law, we should pass H.R. 8069, the Reducing Farm Input
Costs and Barriers to Production Act, introduced by Ranking Member
Thompson, which includes real, immediate solutions our farmers,
ranchers, and producers support.
His bill, which I am proud to support, would reverse the EPA's
reckless actions related to crop production tools, reverse the Biden
administration's confusing and disastrous changes to the Waters of the
United States rule, and would withdraw the SEC's ludicrous ESG rule on
climate-related disclosures, an action that has received bipartisan
support.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, civilians and soldiers are dying in
Ukraine and the American people are feeling it in their pocket, even as
they rise up to support democracy. The American people know there is a
problem.
As we stand on the floor today, the good news is that Democrats care.
That is why we rise today to offer the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act
because the American people see it. They see it at the gas station on
their way home or to work, they see it at the grocery store when their
carts are half empty, and they see it with their hard-earned paychecks
that don't meet what they need. Inflation--they know about it.
You know what, they are looking for a fighting team like the
Democrats to make something happen, not a whining, complaining, get-
nothing-done. In my community, the interest rates are 8.5 percent of
the cost of goods in Houston, Texas. I am not going home and telling
them that we are out here working. I ask for our colleagues to
recognize the importance of lowering costs at the grocery store,
ensuring robust competition, and helping farmers. Let us fight to pass
this bill. We care.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel
Costs Act, that would shore up the food and agriculture supply chain,
assure fair competition in the meat and poultry sectors, and lower food
and gasoline costs to the American consumer.
The American people know that there is a problem.
They see it.
They see it at the gas station on their way home from work.
They see it when they leave the grocery store with a half empty cart.
They see it when their hard-earned paychecks stretch less and less.
Inflation rose by 8.6 percent in May, a 40-year high.
The price of all goods in the Houston metro area have jumped by 8.5
percent since April 2021--the highest year-over-year jump since 1981.
My constituents aren't suddenly making 8.5 percent more than they did
a year ago, mind you.
No, they are now going without.
The cost of the most basic commodities--electricity, oil, meats, and
dairy--have gone up at alarming rates, and our people are
disproportionately bearing the burden of inflation.
An income that previously fed and housed a family, provided life-
supporting medication, and got people to work and back is now capable
of paying only half of those bills.
Our constituents are forced to choose between picking up a
prescription or paying for childcare, between keeping the lights on and
keeping the pantry full.
These are not choices American families should have to make.
Congress must act to rebalance the financial scales in this country.
This package includes the following bills:
H.R. 7606--``Meat and Poultry Special Investigators Act'' which
Establishes an Office of the Special Investigator for Competition
Matters in the Agriculture Secretary's Office.
H.R. 7764--``To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to provide
additional payments under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
for implementation of nutrient management practices'' which would
provide additional assistance to specialty and row crop producers who
undertake USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service practice
standards to use fertilizers more efficiently, do soil testing, or seek
out other sources of plant nutrients.
H.R. 2518--``PRECISE Act--Producing Responsible Energy and
Conservation Incentives and Solutions for the Environment'' which
explicitly states precision agriculture eligibility in Environmental
Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program,
allows a producer who receives payments under EQIP to also receive a
conservation loan guarantee, and allows up to a 90 percent cost share
for precision agriculture under EQIP.
H.R. 1542--``Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Investment and Market
Expansion Act of 2021'' which would deploy additional storage and
dispensing equipment to ensure that higher ethanol blends and other
biofuels are more readily available across the country.
H.R. 4410--``Year-Round Fuel Choice Act of 2021'' which would build
on a recent Biden Administration action allowing voluntary year-
[[Page H5625]]
round sale of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol, know as E-15 or
Unleaded 88.
H.R. 7675--``Strengthening the Agriculture and Food Supply Chain
Act'' which would create an Agricultural and Food System Supply Chain
Resilience and Crisis Response Task Force at USDA, headed by a Special
Advisor on Supply Chain Resilience and Crisis Response.
H.R. 4140--``Butcher Block Act'' which would provide assistance to
create new and expand current local and regional livestock and meat
processing capacity with direct or guaranteed loans.
From the soil in which our farmers plant their seeds, to the fuel
that transports vegetables to our grocers, to the very meat on our
tables, this package will enact positive legislation that the American
people will be able to see.
The spike in food and energy prices are at the center of inflation.
Beginning at the root, as producers across the country face
skyrocketing fertilizer prices, we must help producers reduce their
input costs so planting decisions are not impacted.
Expanding access to precision agriculture technology is critical now,
as we face climate change and fertilizer costs that have doubled or
almost tripled.
Breakdowns and bottlenecks in the food and agriculture supply chain,
resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, have been well documented and
have caused significant losses and concerns to our agricultural
constituents.
Over the last few decades, there has been an influx of domination in
the meat packing industry by four large companies resulting in raised
prices and reduced options for products.
COVID-19 highlighted the country's dangerous reliance on large beef
plants run by the four biggest processors.
The pandemic caused slaughterhouses nationwide to close to contain
outbreaks of the virus among workers.
Ranchers were and still are frustrated that cattle prices drop when
major plants close, while meat companies still benefit from rising meat
prices.
Farmers' share of profits have gone down, while American consumers
continue to pay more, with meat prices being the single largest
contributor to the rising cost of food people consume at home.
A fair and competitive market is fundamental to a well-functioning
U.S. economy.
When firms have to compete for customers, it leads to lower prices,
higher quality goods and services, greater variety, and more
innovation.
Strengthening enforcement of the Packer and Stockyards Act will lead
to greater competition in the meat and poultry processing, fairer
access to markets for producers, and more price stability for
consumers.
Increased processing capacity will alleviate some supply chain
bottlenecks and provide producers with more options to market their
cattle and receive a fair price.
The supply chain will be more resilient and competitive long term as
a result.
With regard to our energy and fuel crisis, further use of biofuels
will reduce prices at the pump for all Americans and increase the
supply of fuel available.
Biofuels adoption and investment helps reduce our reliance on foreign
oil and the supply shocks facing our gasoline supply while also
bolstering a revenue stream for farmers across the country.
E-10 gasoline, gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol, is currently
sold year-round, while the sale of E-15 gasoline, gasoline containing
15 percent ethanol, is dependent on receiving special waivers despite
both having very similar emission profiles when it comes to smog
formation.
Year-round sale of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol (E-15) will
reduce the price at the pump for American drivers by giving consumers
the choice to purchase a fuel that is substantially cheaper than
standard gasoline.
The American people need legislative intervention in a market that is
increasingly becoming more concentrated and suffering from supply chain
disruptions.
This package provides small concrete actions that will invoke change
and provide both short-term immediate and long-term continuous relief.
I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and
Fuel Cost Act.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a
serious issue facing all of rural America: the Biden administration and
the radical left's war on agriculture.
Today, the House will vote on H.R. 7606, which will exacerbate
fractured supply chains, skyrocketing input costs, and historic levels
of inflation, all of which are hammering American consumers.
This bill is the latest attempt to scapegoat private industry rather
than address the real needs and concerns of farmers, ranchers, and
rural Americans. We know the Biden administration and my colleagues
across the aisle see Americans in the oil and gas industry as the
enemy, and I truly believe they now see farmers and ranchers as the
enemy, too.
Mr. Speaker, I want my constituents back home in Texas to know that
this is something I am fighting for every day. I represent the number
one ag district in the State of Texas, and farmers and ranchers in my
district are experiencing out-of-control input costs for fertilizer,
fuel, and basic parts for equipment. I can assure you the legislation
we are voting on today will make that worse.
A spending and regulatory agenda that compounds the situation further
limits American ag industry's ability to meet global food demands is
not the answer.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Harder), a member of the House
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. HARDER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today frustrated, and
to be honest, just plain tired.
For months now, my community has been paying over $6 a gallon for gas
and $5 for a jug of milk. Prices are out of control, and it is crushing
us. I talked to a neighbor the other day and she told me she is going
to have to choose between picking her kids up from school and driving
herself to work, if gas prices stay this high.
Families in my neighborhood don't have the luxury of sitting around
while politicians do nothing. Today, we have a chance to actually help
by passing our Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act.
This package includes my bill, which provides funding for farmers to
implement nutrient management programs. These programs will help lower
the cost of growing food for our farmers, so prices go back to normal
at the grocery store.
Helping farmers lower costs while cutting gas prices for our families
is common sense. It is beyond time that Congress put politics aside and
actually listen to what our communities need. This isn't rocket
science. They are asking for the government to do its job and bring
these prices back down to Earth.
Mr. Speaker, I hope common sense prevails today, and let's pass this
bill.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a great member of the Agriculture
Committee.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I stand here in disbelief at how Washington
is trying to run this economy. That is the reason I ran for office
because things were so bad, and it was impossible to grow your
business.
I am reminded of what we actually did when we had the House, and the
Congress, and the White House. We passed the Constitutional Review Act.
Through that act, we got no help from the other side, and then we
passed some tax reform to give people more money to invest in their
businesses.
Let me tell you what happened. For the first time in my life we
became energy independent. For the first time we became an energy
power. We had more jobs than people looking for jobs. So what happened
now? Joe Biden was the Vice-President when I was elected. He is now the
President. All those executive orders he signed stopped everything we
did to put this country on the right track.
Mr. Speaker, I am tired of this. I demand immediately that we stop
this war on American energy that is driving up costs and stop
overregulating our ag producers.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure
to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my
friend, the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the chairman has done a wonderful job as the
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and I know that you are working
together to bring people together. One of the things that I most admire
about Chairman Scott is that he wants to have a bipartisan result
coming out of his committee, and I think in this bill he has.
Mr. Speaker, every day Americans across the country must contend with
[[Page H5626]]
the rising prices caused by inflation. Whenever they pull up to the gas
pump, they face the repercussions of Vladimir Putin's criminal invasion
of Ukraine, which has made gas prices skyrocket--not just because of
the sanctions, not because of Russia's production, but because of the
lack of confidence in the future that this war has caused.
Whenever our people go to the grocery store, they suffer the
consequences of the havoc that the COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted on
global supply chains. Unfortunately, we cannot erase the past crises
that led to our current economic situation.
I say to the Members of this Congress that we can take the meaningful
steps today to lower prices for consumers and to stimulate America's
economy in the weeks and months to come. That is why House Democrats
are focusing all week on easing inflation and bringing costs down. I
know that is what my Republican colleagues want to do as well.
While this may not be a perfect alternative--there are no perfect
alternatives--this is a positive step toward decreasing the costs to
our people of things that they must buy: fuel and food. To support that
mission, I am proud to bring the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act to the
floor today, at Mr. Scott's request.
America's farmers and ranchers have long fed our Nation, and indeed,
much of the world. Despite their essential work, however, they have
often struggled to turn a reliable profit in recent years because of
rising expenses, associated particularly with fertilizer--the costs of
which have gone up very substantially as a result of the crisis that we
confront.
By making fertilizer more affordable and by improving farmers' access
to loans for precision agricultural technology, this legislation will
help lower these production costs, which burden smaller farmers and
contribute to higher consumer food prices.
Additionally, this bill will lower gas prices by increasing biofuel
adoption and investment, and by giving consumers greater fuel choices
at the pump.
Lack of competition in the meat and poultry processing industries has
also jeopardized many of our family farmers and the people they feed.
Competition is the essence of a free market. Competition is the essence
of establishing prices that are reasonable and fair, both to producers
and to consumers.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help level that
playing field for small and independent producers trying to break into
the industry, which will both boost our meat processing capacity and
stoke healthy competition and innovation, which both sides of the aisle
believe is the way we have created this extraordinary economy we know
as the American economy: competition and free markets.
Similarly, this bill establishes a dedicated office within the
Department of Agriculture to strengthen enforcement of existing
antitrust authorities to consult on trade practices, ensuring a fairer,
more competitive industry that works better for consumers.
We know that if just a few producers have a monopoly--and that is one
of the problems with oil prices. We have OPEC nations who have
constricted supply when demand was up. What inevitably happens in a
free market? Prices rise.
This is about free markets. This is about competition. This is about
fair pricing for consumers. These reforms will enable our farmers to
produce food more efficiently, driving down costs for Americans at the
grocery store.
Not only will this legislation help us respond to the ramifications
of crises like the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, but they will also
make our agricultural sector and our economy more resilient to future
shocks.
This legislation is a crucial step toward reducing inflation. I thank
Representative Spanberger, Representative Craig, and Representative
Axne, and my friends on the Republican side who have worked on this,
and my friends on the Democratic side who have worked on this.
This is an important piece of legislation for the people--all of
them. All of our Members listened closely to the concerns of their
constituents and took a collaborative approach to come up with
legislation that addresses some of the most pressing needs of the
American people.
{time} 1030
I thank the ranking member of this committee for his thoughtfulness
in approaching this issue.
Today, every Member of this House has an opportunity to do something
to ease inflation. Every Member has an opportunity to vote to ease
inflation today. We are eager to take that action, which is why we are
bringing this to the floor and voting to pass it.
I hope all of our Members will join us so we can show our
constituents that their Congress is addressing inflation and working
together on their behalf, not on our political behalves, but working
together to pass this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues: vote ``yes.''
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), who is another
great member of the House Agriculture Committee.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7606,
the higher food and increased fuel costs act.
I just cannot believe that at a time when we Americans all are paying
more for everything, from gas, groceries, energy, and beyond, my
colleagues on the left want more regulation and more government
intervention. They want to blame Putin and the war in Ukraine, but they
don't want to accept responsibility for the very policies that are
helping drive these increased costs.
If the last year has taught us anything, Mr. Speaker, it is that Big
Government with a one-size-fits-all approach of spending into oblivion
does not work. It turns out, shockingly, that taking cues from the
Easter Bunny doesn't work.
Look at the facts: fuel, 106 percent up; eggs, 32 percent increase;
fresh and frozen chicken, up 19.3 percent; milk, up 15.9 percent;
bacon, up 15.6 percent; baby food, up almost 13 percent. Oh, by the
way, we can't find it. Let's talk about that.
Right now, our farmers--and I know this for a fact because I come
from a rural producing district--have their backs up against a wall.
With skyrocketing prices for inputs like fertilizer, fuel, and feed,
many of our producers are now reaching a breaking point.
This administration, however, seems hellbent on pushing them over the
edge. The regulatory regime at the EPA--and I use that word
deliberately--threatens the very livelihood of our producers and the
long-term food security of our Nation. Everyone in this room can agree
that food security is national security, and it is dangerous policy
what the left is doing in taking out our producers.
Now, it seems as if they are more focused on Green New Deal policies,
and our districts will never be the same if we continue down this path.
Any sort of tax or additional regulation is increasing the costs to
produce fuel and produce our food.
This is a time when Americans, keep in mind, are making decisions
between gas or groceries, and we are seriously up here talking about
increasing costs for fuel and food? Give me a break.
We need to slam the brakes on any policy that empowers more
government bureaucrats and impoverishes the people.
We need to ensure that the EPA does not threaten the future of our
producers with such ridiculous, out-of-touch policies. I know that many
of my colleagues, particularly in leadership, have not filled up a gas
tank in probably 40 years, but I have. Two days ago, I paid over $5 per
gallon of gas. That is what Americans are facing. We need to stop
empowering these bureaucrats.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, if we adopt my motion to recommit, I will
instruct the Committee on Agriculture to add my amendment that would
prohibit the EPA from regulating or taxing emission from livestock.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support the motion to
recommit.
[[Page H5627]]
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much
time is remaining on each side of the aisle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 5
minutes remaining. The gentleman has the only time remaining. The time
of the gentleman from Georgia has expired.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to replow some of the fields and the
comments that have been offered here today. One of my friends on the
Agriculture Committee on the other side, Ms. Spanberger, claims
industry support. She referenced two specific organizations. But it is
certainly not widespread support among farmers and ranchers.
I will offer up this fact: Organizations that are constituted by
farmers and ranchers, including the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, which is a large cattlemen's association throughout this
country made up of men and women in the cattle industry, and the
National Pork Producers Council are organizations that oppose this
piece of legislation. The National Pork Producers Council is made up of
farmers who raise hogs in so many different States in the United States
of America. It is a huge industry in terms of agriculture. That
organization opposes this bill.
The National Chicken Council--poultry--is huge certainly in the State
of Virginia, the State of Pennsylvania, and the State of Georgia. They
oppose this piece of legislation that is on the floor today. The same
thing with the National Turkey Federation and the North American Meat
Institute. All are in opposition to this bill that we are voting on
today.
The American Farm Bureau Federation is not opposed publicly to the
bill, but they have raised a litany of concerns and unanswered
questions.
This bill comes with an additional price tag of $700 million, not
offset, on many of the other provisions. Quite frankly, there are zero
dollars for this duplicative poison pill part of this bill, the special
investigator for cattle and pork. That leaves me concerned that the
existing enforcement resources that I have already made reference to
with USDA and the Department of Justice is going to be drained. We are
actually probably going to see less effective investigations as a
result of this.
We are going to see an increase in consolidation because it is a new
layer. If you are a packer of any size, not just the four big ones, but
medium and small size, and you have a new cop for cows on the beat,
then you are going to have to add compliance staff to be able to
prepare when, quite frankly, the Department of Justice and the Packers
and Stockyards Division is already doing an incredible job. Active
investigations are going on.
I agree with an earlier speaker, I think it was Mr. Lucas from
Oklahoma, if there is evidence of price-fixing and collusion, we have a
regulatory mechanism and a litigation mechanism. People should be held
accountable to that.
Although there are some really good parts of this bill, I am also
disappointed. We know that the only way we really get legislation
through the other side of the Capitol, in the Senate, is where we show
cohesion and where we stick together and work together. We have
complete consensus on basically all the other aspects of this bill. We
did request that this bill be divided and that the special investigator
portion come out of the bill.
I think we could be scoring some victories for the American people
and for the American farmers. But, quite frankly, I think to be in line
with President Biden, because President Biden's approach to everything,
all the problems that have been created with his ill-fated policies, is
that it is somebody else's fault.
This is blaming the private sector, which works hard to provide us
with the food that we need. This is blaming them when, quite frankly,
it is a failure to take responsibility for what has happened on day
one, starting with President Biden.
We would love to work with President Biden to make sure we can
address inflation, but adding this $700 million today, I have never
seen, in my lifetime anyway, or my experience, how you can spend more
money and spend your way out of inflation. It just doesn't work that
way. The economics do not work that way. The inflation issue, again, I
have never seen inflation reduced by spending more money.
I would respectfully encourage, because we can go back to the drawing
board and take each of these bills that are really good bills, the
bipartisan and strong bills, we ought to take those up individually and
give Congress an opportunity to speak on behalf of the American people
and affirm that these are good bills. Let the special investigator
stand on its own.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7606, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Each further amendment printed in part F of House Report 117-366
shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be
withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to
a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Khanna
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
1 printed in part F of House Report 117-366.
Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, line 1, strike ``AGRICULTURE AND'' and all that
follows through ``TASK FORCE'' on line 4 and insert the
following: ``AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCY''.
Page 7, after line 4, insert the following: ``Subtitle A--
Agriculture and Food System Supply Chain Resilience and
Crisis Response Task Force''.
Page 12, after line 4, add the following:
Subtitle B--Addressing Fertilizer Shortages
SEC. 311. ADDRESSING FERTILIZER SHORTAGES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall support
and incentivize domestic activities through grants, loans,
and other forms of assistance, to address fertilizer
shortages and deficiencies, diversify fertilizer sources, and
reduce dependency on foreign sources for fertilizer,
including by--
(1) increasing the availability of innovative fertilizer
and fertilizer alternatives, including nitrogen, phosphate,
potassium, biological products and technologies, and other
nutrients that may assist in the production of agricultural
commodities;
(2) increasing materials or tools that reduce the need for
fertilizer or support the more efficient use of fertilizer,
including nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, biological products
and technologies, and other nutrients that may assist in the
production of agricultural commodities;
(3) supporting materials and facilities and research and
development, that may support the purposes of this section;
(4) supporting sustainable agriculture production through
the supporting production of--
(A) sustainable fertilizer produced in, or used in a manner
that, reduces the greenhouse gas impact; or
(B) fertilizer produced through the use of renewable energy
sources, including incentivizing greater precision in
fertilizer use;
(5) supporting activities or other measures that may
otherwise address competition-related challenges in the
United States fertilizer market and obstacles to producers in
obtaining affordable, responsibly manufactured fertilizer as
referred to in the notice entitled ``Access to Fertilizer:
Competition and Supply Chain Concerns'' published by the
Department of Agriculture in the Federal Register on March
17, 2022 (87 Fed Reg. 15191 et seq.); and
(6) using the facilities and authorities of the Commodity
Credit Corporation and the authorities under section 1473H of
the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3319k).
(b) Priority Applicants.--In selecting activities to
support under this section, the Secretary shall give priority
to applications for such support containing proposals that
the Secretary determines will most quickly address fertilizer
shortages in the near term and mid-term.
(c) Streamlined Process.--In providing assistance pursuant
to this section, the Secretary shall ensure that such
assistance be provided through a streamlined and expedient
process (as determined necessary by the Secretary) to quickly
address fertilizer shortages.
(d) Administrative Funding.--Not more than 3 percent of the
funding provided under this section may be used by the
Secretary for administrative purposes.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to
amounts otherwise available,
[[Page H5628]]
there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section, $100,000,000, to remain available until expended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment would authorize a new program at the
Department of Agriculture to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of
fertilizer. It is to make sure that America will be more self-
sufficient and that our farmers will be more self-sufficient with our
fertilizers and not dependent on Russia or foreign countries.
Everyone knows that retail fertilizer costs are at an all-time high.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine is driving severe food shortages and severe
fertilizer shortages. This has driven up food prices and hurt American
farmers and consumers across the country. In my district, food prices
are up and fertilizer prices are up.
The cost of agricultural chemicals has more than doubled since the
start of the pandemic, and one of the reasons is Russia is a major
exporter of nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus fertilizers.
We need to be less dependent on countries like Russia, and we need to
develop these fertilizers here in the United States. That is why
Congress must act on a bipartisan basis.
This amendment is common sense. It would authorize $100 million for
grants, loans, research and development, and other assistance for the
Department of Agriculture to support our farmers in developing
fertilizer made in the United States.
It will support sustainable and innovative domestic production of
fertilizers because our fertilizers are far more sustainable and far
more innovative than the fertilizers we get from other parts of the
world.
It will invest in practices that reduce the use of fertilizers. One
of the best things we can do for food prices and our environment is to
reduce the need for fertilizers by having those fertilizers be more
innovative.
The amendment also bolsters competition in the fertilizer market.
Most important, it makes us less dependent on the Russians and less
dependent on the global supply chain. It will create jobs for domestic
producers of fertilizers.
The Department of Agriculture is already supporting American-made
fertilizers through the Commodity Credit Corporation. My amendment will
expand the Department's authority so they can prioritize solutions that
will most quickly address these shortages.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this amendment. I thank Chairman
Scott for working with me on this amendment. I also thank the
Agriculture Committee staff of Anne Simmons, Lyron Blum-Evitts,
Prescott Martin, Josh Lobert, and Luke Theriot for their work, and
Kevin Fox on my team.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I express my appreciation
to the gentleman for bringing forth a concept that could provide
relief, but not for many years.
This is an amendment to a bill that talks about immediate reduction
in food prices, but this is kind of a long-term investment. I
appreciate that concept, but it is not what this bill says. It really
doesn't contribute to immediate relief to American consumers or
reducing input costs for our farmers in the immediate or near term.
Working together is how the House Committee on Agriculture solves
problems. The committee has been working together with the Department
to better understand this amendment, its purpose, and its implications.
Mr. Speaker, the Department and I have agreed that this is not a
near-term solution to the high price and limited availability of
fertilizer.
As the gentleman knows, this amendment was pulled from consideration
by my Democratic colleagues in a recent committee markup.
{time} 1045
Unfortunately, we have not learned much since then, which furthers my
opposition to it. Growing the size of government by codifying the Biden
administration's half-baked initiatives, authorizing $100 million,
specifying further use of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and
minimally funded research programs is no way to tackle rising inflation
or to address skyrocketing fertilizer costs. In fact, it leaves us in a
rather more tenuous situation when it comes to our farmers.
The Commodity Credit Corporation is what we use and what we depend on
and rely on when our farmers fall on difficult times. And they are
there, these input costs.
Not in all commodities but in most commodities, we see a record price
that they are getting for their commodity. But the fact is that
agriculture is a business. Farming is a business. Ranching is a
business. At the end of the day, it is the margin. It is not what you
get paid. You have to consider what you are paying in input costs.
With this inflation, with these types of policies we are talking
about today, there will be many commodities that soon will be upside
down. They will be more expensive to produce than what they are able to
get for price. There are commodities that are already at that point.
Draining the CCC in any year, in 2022, is not only wrong; it is
dangerous. We are not going to have the resources to be able to help
our farmers to keep them farming and to use the CCC for what its
primary purpose and mission was about.
Even more perplexing is the idea we would want to solidify in law
concepts that USDA admittedly has not developed into programming or
policy, as the public comment period was just extended yet again.
Now, we would have been better served by considering Republican
amendments, all of which would have provided immediate relief through
reversing the regulatory assault stifling the innovation and
exacerbating strained supply chains.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this
amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I respect the ranking member. We have worked together on a number of
initiatives.
I would just say that this amendment, by giving the Commodity Credit
Corporation resources, is helping make things in America. Whether it is
immediate or whether it is over the next few months, we should have a
bipartisan consensus that we ought to be making more things in this
country and be less dependent on Russia and foreign sources.
While I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, I also hope that we
can continue to work with the other side to find common ground over
this Congress so that we can get bipartisan support for an effort to
build more fertilizer in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
The gentleman offered an amendment. He is a good friend. We do work
together. Another area of jurisdiction on the Agriculture Committee
that shocks people, actually, is cryptocurrency because it is a
commodity and traded and overseen by CFTC. He has been such a great
partner as we have worked together with those solutions.
The whole concept of bipartisan work, it is alive and well in the
Agriculture Committee, but just not reflected with this poison pill
that is in this particular piece of legislation.
With this amendment, I think, as I said before, yes, we need to be
looking long term. But this legislation we are dealing with today,
according to the Democrats, is supposed to have an immediate reduction
in inflation.
While I believe we do need to do an investment long term and look at
other methods of producing fertilizer, this doesn't really fit with
reducing prices for American families today. To do it and do it right,
we really do need USDA on board. We need to have their input. We need
to have their ability to do this through their programming.
[[Page H5629]]
This is something I look forward to continuing to work on with the
gentleman. I continue to voice my opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Khanna).
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Spanberger
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
2 printed in part F of House Report 117-366.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in
order by the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, line 1, strike ``AGRICULTURE AND'' and all that
follows through ``TASK FORCE'' on line 4 and insert the
following: ``AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCY''.
Page 7, after line 4, insert the following: ``Subtitle A--
Agriculture and Food System Supply Chain Resilience and
Crisis Response Task Force''.
Page 12, after line 4, add the following:
Subtitle B--American Food Supply Chain Resiliency
SEC. 311. SUPPLY CHAIN REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS.
The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Subtitle H--Food Supply Chain Resiliency
``SEC. 298. SUPPLY CHAIN REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, shall
enter into cooperative agreements with eligible entities to
establish not fewer than 6 Supply Chain Regional Resource
Centers to support small-sized and medium-sized producers of
agricultural products and small-sized and medium-sized
agricultural businesses through activities, which may
include--
``(1) offering coordination, technical assistance, and
capacity building support to small-sized and medium-sized
producers of agricultural products and agricultural
businesses;
``(2) supporting supply chain and value chain
coordination--
``(A) in the region in which such producers or businesses
are located; and
``(B) with the Department of Agriculture, other Federal,
State, and Tribal agencies with relevant resources, regional
commissions, and other Supply Chain Regional Resource
Centers;
``(3) providing technical assistance to such producers and
businesses;
``(4) providing grants or other financial assistance to
such producers and businesses looking to expand production or
a business or start production or a business in such region;
and
``(5) carrying out such other activities as may be
specified by the Secretary.
``(b) Focus on Tribal Supply Chain Issues.--At least one
Supply Chain Regional Resource Center established pursuant to
subsection (a) shall provide coordination, assistance, and
capacity building support to address supply chain issues
faced by Indian tribes and Tribal organizations (as defined
in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)).
``(c) Application.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible entity (including an entity
representing a partnership) seeking to enter into a
cooperative agreement under this section shall submit to the
Secretary an application, at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including how the Supply Chain Regional Resource Centers
established by such entity will address food and agricultural
supply chain issues faced by underserved communities.
``(2) Regional diversity.--In selecting eligible entities
to enter into a cooperative agreement under this section, the
Secretary shall ensure the regional diversity of such
entities.
``(d) Term.--The term of a cooperative agreement entered
into under this section shall be not less than 4 years.
``(e) Coordination.--A Supply Chain Regional Resource
Center shall, as a condition on entering into a cooperative
agreement under this section, agree to coordinate with other
Supply Chain Regional Resource Centers, when appropriate.
``(f) Report to Congress.--Beginning not later than 2 years
after the date of the enactment of the Lower Food and Fuel
Costs Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate a report on--
``(1) with respect to the activities carried out by the
Secretary under this section--
``(A) a description of such activities; and
``(B) the impact of such activities on supply chain issues
faced by small-sized and medium-sized producers of
agricultural products; and
``(2) with respect to the activities carried out by the
Supply Chain Regional Resource Centers under this section--
``(A) a description of such activities;
``(B) the impact of such activities on supply chain issues
faced by small-sized and medium-sized producers of
agricultural products and agricultural businesses; and
``(C) any grants awarded by Supply Chain Regional Resource
Centers to such producers and businesses.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
``(A) a State government (or a political subdivision
thereof), regional authority, or an Indian Tribe or Tribal
organization;
``(B) a college or university (as defined in section 1404
of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103)) (including a
land-grant college or university); or
``(C) a nonprofit organization, including a producer
network or association, a food council, an economic
development corporation, or another organization.
``(2) State.--The term `State' has the meaning given such
term in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103).
``(h) Funding.--In addition to amounts otherwise available,
there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through
2026.
``(i) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
interpreted to undermine or narrow the authority of the
Secretary to carry out activities described in subsection (a)
under any other authority of the Secretary.''.
SEC. 312. AGRICULTURE INNOVATION CENTERS PROGRAM.
Section 6402(a) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1632b(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) applied research, technical assistance, support
services, outreach, and other services to strengthen,
maintain, and secure supply chains related to value-added
agricultural commodities and products produced in the United
States.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in support of my amendment to include the American Food Supply
Chain Resiliency Act in H.R. 7606, the Lower Food and Fuel Cost Act. I
thank Congressman Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio for his partnership on this
bipartisan legislation.
Supply chain disruptions are impacting the operations of businesses
in Virginia and across the country, leaving shelves empty and driving
up prices for consumers. For crop and livestock producers, as well as
agribusinesses, the current disruptions are a threat to their
livelihoods and their ability to deliver high-quality products at an
affordable price while still making ends meet.
Meanwhile, Americans are suffering from rising food prices at grocery
stores, dollar stores, and restaurants. Rising inflation makes trips to
the grocery store more and more stressful as the price of staple items
like meat, eggs, and vegetables rise, sometimes going up monthly, even
weekly.
Americans have shared the experience of going to the grocery store--
we all have--picking up our favorite food items that we have purchased
for years and thinking, well, this is more expensive than last week. My
husband and I were just talking about this issue over the weekend as we
changed our own shopping list because of it.
Few products are more essential than the foods we eat. Farmers,
particularly small- and medium-sized producers, have been left out of
investments that are meant to mitigate supply chain challenges, and
that has meant it is getting more difficult to get products from the
farm to the market and, finally, to the table.
While big companies have the budget to invest in supply chain
innovations, research, and experts, small- and medium-sized producers
are paying higher prices than ever for fertilizer, fuel, shipping, and
other input costs.
When farmers pay more to produce food, all Americans pay more at the
[[Page H5630]]
grocery store. That is why we must empower USDA to do more to resolve
farmers' and food businesses' supply chain challenges. We must be
prepared.
To address these concerns, I was proud to lead the bipartisan
American Food Supply Chain Resiliency Act. This legislation would
establish supply chain regional resource centers through cooperative
agreements with the Agricultural Marketing Service at USDA.
These resource centers would offer locally tailored coordination,
technical assistance, and grants to small- and medium-sized producers
and agribusinesses, leading to stronger supply chains. This bill would
also expand the great work of the Agriculture Innovation Program to
include research and support on supply chains.
By establishing supply chain regional resource centers, this bill
would provide additional support to family farmers and food businesses
trying to deliver their goods at a lower price for consumers. These
centers would help local producers get through lean years, obtain the
inputs they need, and address challenges related to transportation
costs, labor, and high energy prices.
In fact, USDA has already taken similar steps to build collaboration
across sectors of local and regional food supply chains through
regional centers. Our bipartisan legislation would support and build on
these centers, as well as make sure they are a wise, tailored
investment with a clear mission and fair reporting requirements.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan bill.
Once again, I thank Congressman Gonzalez for his partnership.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I express my appreciation
to the gentlewoman from Virginia for bringing forth an idea, and I do
wish the same courtesy had been extended to my Republican colleagues
who were denied the opportunity to bring their amendments forward for
debate.
Working together is how the House Committee on Agriculture solves
problems, and the committee has been working together with the
Department to better understand this amendment, its purpose, and its
implications.
As the gentlewoman knows, this amendment was pulled from
consideration by my Democrat colleagues in a recent committee markup.
Unfortunately, we have not learned much since then, which furthers my
opposition to it being considered prematurely on the floor today.
I cannot support this amendment as written, an amendment that falls
short of its advertised goals, and does not offer any immediate relief
to farmers, ranchers, or consumers, because that is the myth that my
Democrat friends are trying to sell with the overall bill today, which
will not happen. In fact, I am afraid inflationary costs, more
concentration, are going to occur as a result of a specific part of the
package.
Growing the size of government by codifying the Biden
administration's half-baked initiatives is no way to tackle rising
inflation or address rising fuel and fertilizer costs.
Even more perplexing is the idea that we would want to solidify in
law concepts that USDA admittedly has not developed into programming or
policy.
Now, we would have been better served by considering Republican
amendments, all of which would have provided immediate relief through
reversing the regulatory assault stifling innovation and exacerbating
strained supply chains.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this
amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My colleague on the other side of the aisle mentioned that this bill
will not provide immediate relief, and I concur. This bill is not meant
to provide immediate relief. The amendment before us would plan for the
future and would recognize that we face disruptions in our supply
chain, and frequently, when we do, it is our farmers and producers who
are impacted, particularly smaller and medium-sized producers like
those in our districts.
This bill, this amendment to the larger bill, is an issue of planning
for the future, recognizing disruptions that may come, and being able
to proactively plan for such challenges.
It is unfortunate that the gentleman feels that they were left out of
the process, but I am heartened that the scope of concern relates to
the process and not the underlying amendment.
This amendment is about long-term planning. It is about ensuring that
our smaller and medium-sized producers and agribusinesses have the
technical assistance, the support, and the coordination that they will
need to weather challenges in supply chain disruptions that may occur
today, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years into the future.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to reiterate, in my comments, I said it was premature,
and I do believe it is. I think that this is a concept that the
gentlewoman is pursuing that is worthy of consideration, worthy of
development and full development so that we can have an appropriate
consideration of the text of this particular amendment.
I also think it is out of place with this particular bill because the
context, the pretext that my Democratic friends are presenting here, is
a false promise that whatever would pass, and if this would somehow
find a pathway through the Senate and be implemented, that it would
immediately lower food and fuel costs. That is just not the case.
This is more of a long-term vision. I appreciate that because I think
we should be looking long term when it comes to the needs of input
costs for our farmers because, quite frankly, when we have inflation,
when we have burdensome regulations, when we have an administration
that is really out of control from a regulatory perspective, sidelining
their scientists at the EPA--which, by the way, actually, part of those
are funded under a public-private partnership with agribusinesses to
make sure that farmers can have access to crop protection tools,
significant crop protection tools that have been sidelined by this
administration, when these same scientists have found them to be safe
in application in the past.
What I would say is that I look forward to working with the
gentlewoman in the future on this concept, but I continue to remain in
opposition.
This is not quite ready for prime time, not ready for consideration.
We need to be working more. We need more time working in a bipartisan
way and, quite frankly, hearing from the administration as well and
USDA.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There is no disagreement that across America's regions and across our
commodities, our Nation's farmers and ranchers have gotten the short
end of the stick, particularly when it comes to rising input costs as a
result of supply chain bottlenecks and inflation.
The Lowering Food and Fuel Costs Act and this amendment take crucial,
commonsense steps toward addressing these challenges, both now and into
the future, planning for a future where we can be proactive,
continually so, and ensure that small and targeted investments from
USDA today can have impacts on small- and medium-sized producers'
ability to get food to market and improve their bottom lines.
At the same time, these investments should also lead to lower food
prices for Americans at the grocery store, convenience stores, and
restaurants.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. I look
forward to working with my colleague across the aisle to receive
additional, very specific feedback on how we can make some of these
provisions stronger, better with that input into the future.
Today, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment in front
of us and, ultimately, ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
[[Page H5631]]
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I continue to offer my
opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
The amendment was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question is ordered on the
bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Cammack of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R.
7606 to the Committee on Agriculture.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Cammack is as follows:
Page 2, after line 3, add the following:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
not promulgate or implement any regulation under the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) imposing the collection of a
fee, or requiring any source to obtain a permit under title V
of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7661 et seq.), for carbon dioxide,
nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions resulting
from biological processes associated with livestock
production.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
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.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
This is a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 206,
nays 218, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 276]
YEAS--206
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
NAYS--218
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--5
Armstrong
Casten
Costa
Garcia (CA)
Zeldin
{time} 1139
Mses. TLAIB, OMAR, Mr. FOSTER, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY, Messrs.
THOMPSON of California, LEVIN of California, CLEAVER, Ms. CHU, Mr.
PASCRELL, Mses. JACKSON LEE, SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Ms.
SCANLON, Messrs. RUSH, SHERMAN, and O'HALLERAN changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GRAVES of Louisiana, COLE, and BANKS changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress
Amodei (Balderson)
Bergman (Stauber)
Blunt Rochester (Brown (MD))
Bonamici (Beyer)
Boyle, Brendan F. (Neguse)
Brooks (Weber (TX))
Brownley (Kuster)
Bustos (Mrvan)
Cardenas (Correa)
Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
Davids (KS) (Neguse)
Davis, Danny K. (Beyer)
Doggett (Beyer)
Evans (Beyer)
Garcia (IL) (Takano)
Gohmert (Weber (TX))
Gomez (Huffman)
Gonzalez (OH) (Meijer)
Guest (Fleischmann)
Johnson (GA) (Manning)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kahele (Mrvan)
Katko (Moore (UT))
Kelly (IL) (Neguse)
Krishnamoorthi (Neguse)
Lamb (Neguse)
LaMalfa (Valadao)
Lawrence (Stevens)
Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)
Lieu (Beyer)
Long (Fleischmann)
Loudermilk (Fleischmann)
Mace (Carter (GA))
McEachin (Beyer)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Newman (Beyer)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Payne (Pallone)
Peters (Jeffries)
Pingree (Wasserman Schultz)
Porter (Neguse)
[[Page H5632]]
Price (NC) (Manning)
Rice (SC) (Meijer)
Sires (Pallone)
Stanton (Huffman)
Suozzi (Beyer)
Swalwell (Correa)
Taylor (Van Duyne)
Tenney (Jackson)
Titus (Pallone)
Trahan (Stevens)
Wagner (McHenry)
Walorski (Bucshon)
Waters (Takano)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Welch (Pallone)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mrvan). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 204, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 277]
YEAS--221
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Feenstra
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hartzler
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Miller-Meeks
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--204
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
NOT VOTING--4
Armstrong
Casten
Garcia (CA)
Zeldin
{time} 1156
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Amodei (Balderson)
Bergman (Stauber)
Blunt Rochester (Brown (MD))
Bonamici (Beyer)
Boyle, Brendan F. (Neguse)
Brooks (Weber (TX))
Brownley (Kuster)
Bustos (Mrvan)
Cardenas (Correa)
Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
Costa (Correa)
Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
Davids (KS) (Neguse)
Davis, Danny K. (Beyer)
Doggett (Beyer)
Evans (Beyer)
Garcia (IL) (Takano)
Gohmert (Weber (TX))
Gomez (Huffman)
Gonzalez (OH) (Meijer)
Guest (Fleischmann)
Johnson (GA) (Manning)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kahele (Mrvan)
Katko (Moore (UT))
Kelly (IL) (Neguse)
Krishnamoorthi (Neguse)
Lamb (Neguse)
LaMalfa (Valadao)
Lawrence (Stevens)
Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)
Lieu (Beyer)
Long (Fleischmann)
Loudermilk (Fleischmann)
Mace (Carter (GA))
McEachin (Beyer)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Newman (Beyer)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Payne (Pallone)
Peters (Jeffries)
Pingree (Wasserman Schultz)
Porter (Neguse)
Price (NC) (Manning)
Rice (SC) (Meijer)
Sires (Pallone)
Stanton (Huffman)
Suozzi (Beyer)
Swalwell (Correa)
Taylor (Van Duyne)
Tenney (Jackson)
Titus (Pallone)
Trahan (Stevens)
Wagner (McHenry)
Walorski (Bucshon)
Waters (Takano)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Welch (Pallone)
____________________