Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I did want to follow up on the important points raised by the chairman and the ranking member dealing with unintended consequences and other issues that we have in terms of dealing with activities of animals for fighting purposes. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to deal with the concerns, legitimate concerns, that have been raised. It would close a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act that allows for the shipment of fighting dogs or birds from the United States to foreign countries, and it increases the penalties for promoting illegal animal fighting venues. Mr. Chairman, the current penalties are 25 years old and are in dire need of update. It increases the maximum penalties from 1 year and a $5,000 fine to 2 years and a $15,000. For comparison, Mr. Chairman, the Federal law passed last year prohibiting animal crush videos provided for maximum penalties of 5 years and $250,000 fine; and in most States there are provisions for a maximum of 5 years imprisonment for animal fighting, with some States' penalties as high as 10 years or $100,000. With higher penalties, U.S. Attorneys are more likely to prosecute animal fighting violations. When the Federal anti-animal fighting law was enacted in 1976, no State made animal fighting a felony. Today, 46 States have felony provisions for animal fighting. We must increase our quarter-century-old Federal penalties to make them work in today's climate. Closing the foreign commerce loophole is equally important. I appreciate my colleague's pointing it out. In 1976, Congress added a section to the Animal Welfare Act, section 26, to crack down on dogfighting and cockfighting; but it did not, however, ban shipment of dogs or birds from the United States to foreign countries. This loophole allows shipment of fighting birds to foreign countries that provides a smoke screen behind which illegal cockfighters operate here. Ironically, Mr. Chairman, the United States prohibits the importing of animals for fighting but still allows the exports of this animal; a practice I believe may well violate international trade rules. It is also important to note that the provisions of this amendment apply to the practice of dogfighting. As I mentioned previously, this is illegal in all 50 States. The same dire activities to breed the animals for aggressive characteristics, train them, and then place them in a pit to fight, to injure, or die applies as it does to cockfighting. We must not allow these dogs to be bred in the United States for shipment abroad. Mr. Chairman, cockfighters rear birds for aggressive behavior. We have had the same thing in terms of what happens to the dogs. These practices are a major underground industry. It is time to close all possible loopholes, increase the penalties, and ban shipments of fighting dogs and birds to foreign countries.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, since my request for a recorded vote on my amendment that would have banned interstate transfer of game birds for cockfighting purposes, I have had conversations with the Chair and ranking member of the Committee. I would like to express my appreciation for their commitment to work to keep these provisions in the bill, I would like to acknowledge it, and accordingly, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote and ask that that be vacated, and that the question on agreeing to the amendment be put to the Chamber de novo.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do thank the committee for this important discussion. I find it exceedingly valuable. I am one of the people who the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) referred to who is not an expert in agriculture. I do not pretend to be. But it is important to me, and I took the time this summer to talk to people in my State who are the experts, people on the board of agriculture, practicing farmers, leaders in the industry. They made it clear to me that this was an opportunity for this Congress to seize the opportunity to begin reforming agriculture for the next century. The current system, I was told, and I dearly believe, and nothing that I have read in connection with the debate here today leads me to feel otherwise, that is, that our system was great to lead us out of the Depression, and it does indeed continue to help many economic interests, but it does not, for instance, help what happens in my State for the majority of people who are involved with agriculture. This amendment that we are debating here today is an opportunity for us to step forward that is going to make a difference in our community. I would like to dwell on one particular item, the farmland protection program, which would receive much needed increased funding under this amendment. There currently is a backlog of over $250 million for the voluntary purchase of conservation easements under this program. The previous farm bill in 1996 and the currently proposed farm bill did not and will not come close to providing the funding necessary to meet the current waiting list of farmers. Right now, three out of four who apply to participate are turned away. The current bill limits the farmland protection program to $50 million a year. This amendment reauthorizes the farmland protection program through the year 2011, funded at $100 million in fiscal year 2002, increasing to one-half a billion dollars annually by 2006. It is important to understand that the farmland protection program does not just benefit farmers, it benefits communities everywhere. The farmland protection program, as its name implies, allows the farmers to continue working the land. They receive payment for doing what they intend to do, keeping the land as farmland. This is particularly important in the vast amounts of prime farmland around our metropolitan areas, where increasing land values make it difficult for farmers to keep their land as farmland. Nationally this prime farmland produces 85 percent of domestic fruit and vegetables. Almost 80 percent of our dairy production takes place in what we are calling urban-influenced counties. They are under relentless pressure. There were 3.2 million acres converted to nonagricultural uses between 1992 and 1997, double the rate of previous years. There are 90 million acres that are threatened by sprawl. When I was born, the number one agricultural county in the United States, and this is only half a century ago, was Los Angeles. What county is going to be lost next? We are developing land at twice the rate of the increase in population growth. But it is not just the farmers that benefit. We have talked about how disconnected the general public is from the practice of agriculture. We are protecting this land for agricultural purposes around the metropolitan area to make it easier for the public to understand how valuable it is and that sugar does not just come from candy bars and fruit and vegetables do not come from tin cans. The Farmland Protection Act helps the surrounding communities by saving taxpayer money. Farmland or open space costs on average about one-third of the amount of money as it produces from taxes. Residential development, to the contrary, costs local governments about 25 percent more. Cities and towns can save billions of dollars in municipal water and treatment costs. Protecting wetlands and streams prevents the cost of water treatment downstream. Our communities and taxpayers want farmland protection. Survey research demonstrates that the public would like to have their Federal tax dollars by strong majorities used to keep farmland from being developed. Seventy-five percent think that farm support payments should require farmers to practice conservation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, supporting this amendment is a step away from the Depression era of farm support. It is an opportunity to us to step forward, to help farmers voluntarily protect their land, save tax dollars, meet the needs that are building up now, and help us, in a State like Oregon, help protect farmland for generations to come.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, it is not. That is why I have a subsequent amendment designated number 9 which I will offer that would make it illegal to transport these birds out of the United States.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I am only sorry that it is not cosponsored in addition by our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller) so it could be the Miller sugar cube. This program is one example where we are led to believe that it is not a problem of subsidization that ends up distorting our markets, disadvantaging consumers and posing great risks to the environment. This year, the bizarre system that artificially raises the price of sugar in the United States, puts import restrictions on the commodity while at the same time paying farmers to plow over their crop and allowing the sugar producers to pay back their loans with sugar is not subsidization, not dealing with the market, I beg to differ. I would suggest that any econ student 101 armed with the basic information from the GAO reports could argue persuasively to the contrary. And all of this for a crop that wreaks havoc on the environment, especially in the Florida Everglades. We have heard that there is a disproportionately few number of people who benefit from this program, and of those the majority are large scale farmers and producers. We have heard that 40 percent of the benefits go to 1 percent of the growers, precious little getting to the small family farm, and they continue to go out of business every year. We must reassess the myth that somehow this subsidy to corporate sugar producers is paid for by magic and that there is no risk to the consumer or the taxpayer. As my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) pointed out, we heard that before in 1996. The sugar subsidy we are talking about here costs American consumers almost $2 billion a year. And that has no effect on the economy? I beg to differ. I would think that some of my free market friends would be laughed out of the room if they suggested it in other areas. In addition to costing the taxpayer, inflating the cost to two or sometimes three times the world price, we are, as we have heard, losing American jobs now, not theoretically, but because it is cheaper to move the production overseas while the American public is paying a million dollars a month just to store the excess sugar right now. As we move into a more globalized economy, we should not be supporting a backward program that makes it difficult for us to meet the demands of our agreements with the World Trade Organization and NAFTA. We have heard people here on this floor call for fairness, and then we turn around and do something that is goofy. But I oppose this not just because of the cycle of subsidization, the limitation on free trade and the stockpiling, my particular interest has to do with the environment. We have been involved in Congress here trying to repair decades of damage to the Everglades. The sugar program has expanded sugar cane production in Florida. What was it in 1960? 50,000 acres. What is it today? Almost 500,000 acres, severely harming the natural environment of southern Florida, while we in this Chamber invested $8 billion as a down payment to restore the damage, and we are still subsidizing an industry that is polluting it with the phosphorous-laden agricultural runoff. I would strongly suggest that we break this vicious cycle. The amendment before us would reduce the damage the sugar program does to the environment, to our international trade agreements and to the consumer pocketbook. It would reduce price supports, government quotas, and bring a greater market orientation to the program, not abolishing it. It would authorize up to $300 million in savings from the amendment to go towards conservation and environmental stewardship, which are a priority to all of us because the Everglades problem is a national problem. This is where our priorities need to be, supporting our natural ecosystems, saving the public money, not monkeying around with the market. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment in association with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and appreciate his leadership and support on this important issue. One area of overwhelming consensus on the part of the American public is for the protection of animals, and there is an almost universal aversion to barbaric sports like dog fighting and cockfighting. We have done our job as it relates to dogs. We have not, as it relates to the practice of cockfighting. The majority of the American public overwhelmingly opposes it, and this House voted to ban its use 25 years ago. Yet it still lingers on. Male chickens are bred to display traits of hostility. They are trained to fight, and then they are armed with pikes or knives to maim other roosters. It is calculated to maximize the bloodshed. Sadly, we are in today the third century of a struggle to eliminate this cruel and barbaric practice. Much progress has in fact been made; not here in Congress, but at the State level. It began in the 19th century with the State of Massachusetts in 1837, and went on through the 1800's with States like Mississippi and Arkansas. Today, 47 States have outlawed the practice, and there is strong evidence that the citizens of the three remaining States are likewise strongly opposed. In all likelihood, there will be another one or two States that will outlaw this through their legislatures, and, if not, then by the people themselves. The purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure that the Federal Government is not complicit in aiding and abetting this barbaric practice. The Federal Government has no business undermining the laws in the 47 States by permitting the transfer of these birds across State lines. There are a couple of problems with the situation that we face right now. In the States where the practice is legal, just the three of them, the cockfighting activities, the arenas, the pits, have developed around the borders of the State. So like in Texas, people come across the border into Oklahoma and engage in the practice. It makes it easy for people to undermine the activities in a State like Texas by going to Louisiana or to Oklahoma. The practice of moving these birds across State lines raises another difficult problem, because law enforcement officials have to deal with the consequences of what is happening in the other 47 States where it is not legal. People who are involved, they claim they are just raising and training the birds, not involved in actual cockfighting activities itself. But time and time and time again, the practice activities degenerate into actual illegal cockfighting activities, and I will not take the time now to enter into the Record example after example where these activities are taking place. And it is not just the barbaric act on the animals themselves that has been outlawed, but there is a great deal of illegal gambling; and there are time and time again violent acts that are associated with these clandestine activities. That is why over 100 law enforcement agencies have urged the enactment of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, Members of this body have recognized that it is time to step up and be counted. Last session we had a majority of Members who cosponsored legislation, with the lead sponsor being our colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). For some reason, we could not bring that legislation forward. This session we have over 200 Members who have already cosponsored legislation, but somehow it has been left out of this bill. I strongly urge that we correct this oversight now. Every major law enforcement agency in my State is supporting the measure because it will make their job easier while stopping this barbaric practice. I suggest that we move to approve this amendment now, to support the humane treatment of animals, and support the efforts of our law enforcement officials. We do not have to wait for legislation that is somehow lingering. We can put it into this bill now. We do not allow transportation across State lines of dogs for fighting purposes. We should do the same thing as it relates to cockfighting. Take the Federal Government out of the business of aiding and abetting this 3-century legacy of shame.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding. I have another amendment at the desk that would close this loophole for the international transport, not just for fighting birds, but also for dogs. We do not permit fighting dogs to be transported intrastate. Would the gentleman agree that the adoption of the other amendment that we have pending would be able to close this loophole for them all?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, and I appreciate the gentleman's concern, but we have been able to successfully ship dogs around the country; they have been able to have dogs for show purposes, and they have been outlawed for some 50 years, meaning transport for fighting purposes. Why could we not do the same thing, have the same protection for poultry that we have for dogs?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern about unintended consequences. The issue that the gentleman talks about in terms of the export of these animals out of the country, which is perfectly legal, is one of those unintended consequences. The reason I will be offering another amendment is right now, it is legal to export from the United States dogs that are bred for fighting. I do not think anybody here agrees with it. It is illegal in the United States to do it. It is an unintended consequence. What we are attempting to do with this amendment that is before us now is to close the unintended consequence in terms of how it moves right now across State lines, and amendment No. 9 would close the loophole not just for fighting birds, but for dogs which I think no Member of this assembly believes we should do, and it was one of the unintended consequences of not writing the Animal Welfare law properly whenever that was enacted. I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and I will be offering an amendment to try and correct that.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in allowing me to speak on her amendment. Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress committed to having the Federal Government be a better partner with our State and local governments, with private citizens, to help make our families safe, healthy, and more economically secure. It is hard to think of an approach that would do more for our families in rural America than is outlined in this proposal. As a member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I know how critical those water needs are. They have been documented here on the floor already today. We know that we need to be doing more in terms of value-added agriculture that is going to be critical for farms, particularly small farms where people are most at risk. This is important investment. But the area that I find most intriguing deals with giving planning resources to rural America. It has been a transformational effect in my State for communities large and small to be able to have the resources to be able to plan their future, to engage their citizens to be part of the solution, to go hunting for money, public and private. Sadly, the situation today is that rural communities do not have access to these critical planning resources. I commend the committee, the ranking member, and the Chair for having stepped forward with the strategic planning initiative. I think it is going to pay huge dividends. But I fear the committee has sold itself short. It should not be limited to a few States. The most compelling part of this amendment to me is that it will give these rural communities throughout America opportunity to have access to them. Mr. Chairman, I implore this body to give the tools to be able to manage their own destiny. I think it will pay dividends for years to come. I think as we look at the interesting coalition that has been assembled on behalf of this, it is reflective of new allies to help in the redevelopment of rural America. I urge members to support this.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the House this morning has an opportunity to stop the barbaric and inhumane practice of cockfighting. Roosters bred, trained, and equipped not just to kill but maim and do maximum damage and bloodshed is something that is abhorrent to the American public. Starting in 1837, Massachusetts and 46 other States over the years have done their job. Congress has not done its. Even though 25 years ago the House passed the legislation and last month passed legislation, we have never had time to do it right. It is time to close this loophole that transports these fighting birds across State lines. Join the advocates for humane treatment of animals, law enforcement, and the overwhelming majority of American citizens. I urge my colleagues to join the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and I to close this loophole by voting for the amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Oregon has a system unique to the nation in protecting its farmland. Other states have utilized conservation easements to preserve farmland. Oregon has used a comprehensive land use system though with a record of stunning success. According to Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development, the state has 16 million acres zoned for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). This is in stark contrast to the 800,000 acres protected acres nationwide. That number is less than what we protect in the northern Willamette Valley alone, which is also our most populous area. Conservation easements--the purchase of development rights--are what other states use to protect farmland rather than the zoning approach that Oregon uses. However, leaders in protecting Oregon's farmland are in agreement that no one tool alone does the job of protecting farmland. In addition to the state's zoning system, conservation easements would be appropriate in Oregon in selected locations. They would serve as a complement to, not a replacement for, the zoning administered by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. The primary reason Oregon has not used federal Farmland Protection Program (FPP) monies in the past is that our state was initially ineligible, but given recent changes to the program we now have the opportunity to participate. Another reason was that within our state it was thought that our land use system already served the need. However, there is increased awareness that zoning needs to be supplemented with voluntary incentives for land conservation. This awareness has been increased by the passage last fall of Oregon ballot initiative, Measure 7. It amends Oregon's Constitution to provide that any property owner whose real property is reduced in value by government regulation must be paid compensation by the government for the lost value. While this measure is still in litigation, if it goes into effect, landowners could begin to make claims for compensation. Access to federal FPP funds would provide Oregon farmers the flexibility to accept conservation payments in lieu of other forms of compensation. I very much appreciate the assurances that Natural Resources Conservation Services have provided me of their willingness to work with Oregon, as they are with any other state that has a unique situation, in utilizing the Farmland Protection Program. Oregon is eager to be a full participant in FPP. Increasing federal funding for this program and ensuring its accessibility for a variety of land conservation uses is key to its success in Oregon and other states.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in giving me some time to speak on this issue. One might ask why a city boy is on the floor dealing with the agriculture bill. Well, in my State, agriculture is the third largest industry. In my district, agriculture has a prominent role. I deeply care about food and water supply and its price. And, most important, we are all influenced by agriculture, whether we live in cities, suburban or rural areas, particularly as it impacts the environment, as it deals with water, land use and the environment for us all. This is an opportunity for us to enter into a new era for agriculture. The United States launched an unprecedented effort during the Depression to rescue our agricultural system, and it was a dramatic success. It has developed the most productive agricultural system in the world. There is no disputing that. But the problem is that today, two-thirds of a century later, the system drives decisions to the detriment of many farmers, consumers, our trade position and the environment. The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act was a bad solution to this admitted problem. We can, in fact, do better. I have met with the agricultural producers and the people on the board of agriculture in my State. This summer they were unanimous in saying that the system misses the mark for them. They do not benefit; the wrong people, by and large, do; they do not need what we have now, but they do need assistance. I agree with the Bush administration that this current bill does not hit the mark. I look forward to a series of amendments that we are going to be discussing in the course of the day, particularly the Boehlert-Kind- Dingell-Gilchrest bill that will help us make a modest shift towards giving what Americans and the agricultural community really need. It is an opportunity to provide benefit for all farmers, not a chosen few. It is an opportunity for us to do a far better job of protecting the environment. It is true, the underlying bill has an 80 percent improvement or whatever. But that speaks to the point that we are not adequately funding the provisions that we have now. We run out of money. There are people that are standing in line to use it. I commend the leadership of the committee for the consensus effort that they have attempted, reaching out. There are some things in this bill that I appreciate. I urge my colleagues, however, to not settle for this incremental step. We can take another important step to create a new direction for agriculture for this new century.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an example of how we can today at least take a system that was designed two-thirds of a century ago and attempt to make it a little better, a little more relevant. I strongly support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and am proud to associate myself as a cosponsor of it. Mr. Chairman, we have heard on this floor how narrowly channeled our support is. Seventy-four percent of the total subsidies go to 18 percent of the producers; two-thirds of the farm support goes to just 10 percent. The last speaker pointed out that half goes to just 7 percent. George Bush has, as recently as this last month, pointed out that there are a lot of medium-sized farmers that need help; and one of the things that we are going to do is make sure that we restructure the farm program to make sure the money goes to the people it is meant to help. I think what the gentleman from Michigan has done is to attempt to give a dimension to the words of our President. The numbers of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) have indicated, and we have all received the reports from CRS that talk about how much acreage is necessary to trigger that limit. I think this is a modest step in the right direction. I know the gentleman from Michigan has some further thoughts on this, and he has my strong support for the amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's framing the words of our President. I could not have said it better myself. This is an opportunity for some bipartisan support to take an important step for making these important programs work a little better, inspire more confidence from the American public, save some money, and be able to target it where it is most needed. I strongly urge support for this amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in yielding time to me to speak briefly to this rule. Mr. Speaker, like the previous Member, I am deeply concerned that, in a time when we should be coming together as a Congress, lifting up our eyes to deal with big issues and finding ways to bring Americans together, that this Congress sees fit to, sadly, divide people by playing with the budget for the District of Columbia. It seems to me that responsible businesses across the country and a number of local governments, some of which I represent, have seen fit to extend in a reasonable fashion insurance coverage to their employees and their domestic associates, people that they have an insurable interest, people that they care about. This is something that is reasonable. I had an opportunity in my prior life to help craft provisions like this. It was good for our employees, it was the right thing to do. For the last 8 years, the District of Columbia's government has chosen to do this with their own resources. Yet, Congress, in its wisdom, has intervened, seen fit to deny them the right to do what is being done by progressive people across the country. It is wrong. It is particularly wrong to do it now. We do not need to have these gratuitous efforts at bringing forth unnecessary political battles. This ought to be one time that we can move beyond it. Mr. Speaker, I was also embarrassed that the Congress of the United States saw fit, in dealing with needed resources for emergency planning, that we were going to micromanage the District of Columbia and withhold some of its funds in dealing with the $16 million in special Federal payments for emergency security planning. I find that particularly ironic, Mr. Speaker, when I consider that the events of the last 2 weeks demonstrated that the Federal Government did not have its act together regarding the District of Columbia; and further, that if the standard for preparedness is what we as Members of this House have done in terms of preparing our offices and our employees for these emergencies, that bar is very low. Every man and woman who serves in this Chamber knows that we were not ready, and has doubts about whether we are ready today. Yet, for the committee to therefore overlook our shortcomings and try to manage the District of Columbia by withholding funds, I find egregious and embarrassing. I hope we will reject the rule and reject the bill.