Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) so very much for his excellent, excellent summary of what this program has done. I want to thank him also for mentioning all of the organizations that support our efforts here. I want people to have this one photo in their mind. If we look at total Trichart showing petroleum consumption in the United States, the growing share of imports that are a part of that is apparent. This is just a staggering set of statistics to keep in mind as we witness our nation become more and more and more dependent on imported petroleum. Here, this chart presents the one picture to keep in our minds. The other one is this: we are at the dawn of the new fuels age. Less than 1 percent, less than 1 percent of what we currently produce in this country do we make ourselves from agriculturally based fuels. The potential literally is unlimited. This bill takes us another small step to open this window to begin to fuel ourselves and put those dollars in our pockets. So I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I ask the membership for their support on this Kaptur-Herseth amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to move America into the future. In the new farm bill, title IX provides for the first time in American history an energy title. In the past fiscal year, we provided $23 million in that account to help move America forward, rooted deeply in the rural countryside. The bill before us today actually cuts that account. This amendment merely restores $8 million to bring it up to equal what we are spending in this current fiscal year of $23 million in the renewable fuels account, title IX of the bill. Members have to decide, are they for the future, or do they want to continue to live in the past? The funds that we use to make this account equal to what it is this year come from the Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments account. There is an $8 million offset within the bill. I think it is important for members on every committee, regardless of where we serve in this House, to help move America forward to energy independence. How we convert this country is each of our responsibilities. The United States currently imports two-thirds of the petroleum we consume. By 2025 it is estimated that we will consume 75 percent of imported fuels in this country. We are at the dawn of a new fuels age. This chart that I am showing you here indicates that the largest share of the fuels we import are from the Middle East. It is no surprise to anybody here where we are at war right now. This is not going to change unless each of us changes. In the most recent farm bill that was passed, we made an effort to do that. To cut the renewable fuels accounts at the beginning of this 21st century makes absolutely no sense at all. All our amendment does is say we made a good start last year. It was a small start, because only about 1 percent of the fuels we consume in this country are renewable fuels, like ethanol and biodiesel. Our amendment says we have made one small step forward for humankind; let us take another small step with this bill. According to GAO, the United States has spent over $130 billion over the last three decades in government subsidies to the oil industry. What we are talking about here is a very small amount of money in this bill, $23 million with this amendment, that would help the U.S. Department of Agriculture help America pull forward and to try to resolve our chief strategic vulnerability, which is our absolutely total dependence on imported petroleum. Recent studies cited by the Renewable Fuels Association found, for example, that increasing ethanol production to just 5 billion gallons annually would create 214,000 jobs, $5.3 billion in new private sector investment in renewable fuel production facilities and increase household income by $51.7 billion, because we would not be draining off the dollars we spend on fuels to go to producers in other countries. While the energy bill would establish a renewable fuel standard that would lead us to a doubling of ethanol usage, we still need to support the development of infrastructure and ethanol and biodiesel plant construction and distribution systems. We are at the dawn of a new fuels age. It is just a little keyhole as we look toward the future. Yet this is one of the most important steps we can take in trying to help America when she needs us most. So every single Member here has to ask themselves as they consider our small amendment, just to put $23 million in this account to keep it equal with last year, are we going to live in the past, or are we going to move forward? Are we going to ask agricultural America to pull forward with the Nation? Or are we going to continue to live with our heads and our pockets literally in the sands of the Middle East and every other undemocratic place in the world? American farmers want to move forward. Is this Congress going to help them, or are we going to continue to live in the troubled past? I ask for support on this amendment. Essentially again what it does, it takes $8 million from the buildings accounts, moves it into title IX, to keep it at $23 million, which is what we are spending in this current fiscal year.

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand the point of order. Our amendment essentially is to bring to a level of $23 million the accounts dealing with biofuels, renewable energy in the bill, which equals this year's level of $23 million. We offset that with funds from the Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments account. My amendment does not touch any part of what the gentleman just read. So, I am from Ohio, and I am offering this amendment. This is not an amendment from Oregon.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) knows the rules of the House very well. The gentleman missed his opportunity as the bill was being read.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, not at this time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, he missed his opportunity as the bill was being read.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, because he is proceeding out of order. We have dozens of amendments, as the gentleman well knows.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. We object to that, Mr. Chairman. He missed his opportunity.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we raised objection to the gentleman's desire to continue with this. He is raising it out of order.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair please explain what is occurring here? We raised objection to the gentleman, who was not on the floor when we read through his section, and we raised objection to that. Why is the gentleman being allowed to proceed?

Ms. KAPTUR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we raise objection to that.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, did we not read past that provision?

Ms. KAPTUR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. KAPTUR. I would reclaim my time and say to the gentleman that the overall bill does not have enough money. We have to try to put dollars in all the accounts as best we can. I agree with the gentleman there is not enough money in the overall allocation, but that does not mean we have to rob all accounts just to serve one purpose. We have to use these dollars broadly and do the best we can with an inadequate allocation.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I did want to respond to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a respected member of our subcommittee, to say that one of our problems in this bill is that, because it is under what we spent last year, many accounts have been scraped. We have been trying to find dollars to do several things in the bill. The Common Computing Environment has a lot of money. This year we are proposing $120 million, an amount over last year. But there are other underfunded programs in the bill extraordinarily important to farmers. For example, in the important area of bioenergy, the administration wants to cut the development of renewable fuels. We have a new title in the farm bill to create a new market in this country for fuels. One of the amendments that will be offered would take a few dollars out of this common computing account and just let that account be level with this year's expenditures which is $23 million. It's not a lot of money in terms of the full bill. But nonetheless to try to really help our farmers bring up a new industry, it amounts to real dollars. This is money not going to a government agency. It is going directly to farmers to bring up a new source of power in our Nation, new sources of power based in agriculture. One of the other amendments, and other Members will speak to this, has to do with the civil rights portions of this bill which are underfunded. This account has over $120 million in it. The third area in which we would hope to take a few dollars out of these accounts are the Farmers Market Promotion Program, a program that was authorized in the new farm bill but has zero dollars now. Farmers out there all around this country are trying to sell their product directly to consumers. We have had so many requests from Members to assist with Farmers' Market Development. We have been unable to meet those requests. For the first time, with this amendment, we would provide funds in a newly authorized program in the farm bill. So, yes, we have to make choices; and we are trying to help all titles of the farm bill as best we can. These dollars, by being diverted to agencies that already have billions of dollars, well, I really would question our ability to monitor those expenditures. And, yes, farmers are going into these farm service agencies and they are not being served, but we have had these accounts plused up over $100 million for computers for years and years and years. One of the points I would have, since we have this computing account in the Secretary's office, we can have better oversight so we can see whether or not they are putting these computers in the farm service agencies. But the truth is we do not have enough money in any account to do everything that needs to be done. I respect what the gentleman is saying, but we have to try to do more with less in every single one of the accounts that we are supposed to fund. I would urge my colleagues to think about this vote because it harms other programs in the bill that are extraordinarily important and are serving our farmers directly. We still maintain hundreds, tens of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars in this account to help with the computing environment. I did want to respond to that.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by our good chairman. This essentially is an effort to transfer funds from the Executive Office of the Secretary and the Common Computing Environment to different funds inside of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in operational agencies. I think it is important to point out to the membership, first of all, this is a lot of money, and it is well over $100 million. This current fiscal year we are spending about $118 million on the Common Computing Environment. Over the years we have increased these accounts, and this year, in fact, within the budget itself there is $2,372,000 in appropriated funds being proposed over last year. The Chairman's amendment would take those dollars and farm them out to the Farm Service Agency, the NRCS, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Rural Development as line items I guess in those accounts, although it is a little unclear to me how we would track this. 1130 But the point is, this is an account that has been rising within the executive office of the Secretary herself. I think it is important for us to keep a clear eye on how these funds are being expended. In addition to that, there are several amendments that Members are offering today that have been cleared and filed in proper time that would take their funds from this particular account. And so the net effect of adoption of this amendment would be to force the Members who wish to offer amendments to find alternative offsets, and also to kind of lose the focus that we currently have on common computing environment in a separate account in the Secretary's office by diverting it to these many places in the agency. So I assume that the gentleman is doing this for good reasons. But the point is I think we would have a lessening of clarity on where these funds are actually being expended by the agencies. In past years, we have had trouble with this account in really following how the administrations are spending these dollars. As we thought they were doing a little better job, we gave them additional funds. But I really do not see the burning need for this amendment right now. There are increases in this account; and, therefore, I think in view of the negative effect it will also have on other amendments being offered here today, I would rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we strongly support this amendment, and I yield back our remaining time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).