Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. What about California?

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

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding we are dealing with Class I.

Mr. POMBO. I think I heard the gentleman say Class III.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, does the gentlewoman not understand that I represent more dairy farmers than she does? Does she not understand that I have more cows than she does?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to start off by saying I appreciate a great deal the job that the gentleman from Vermont has done in his attempt to try and bridge some of the differences, some of the regional differences that exist. I appreciate that effort that he has put into this. But I do have to oppose his amendment to the bill. I came to Congress 10 years ago, or almost 10 years ago. The committee that I was put on was the dairy subcommittee. I have had the great joy of spending literally countless hours debating dairy, not only here today, but over the last 10 years, and getting to appreciate those regional differences and just how difficult it is to try to construct national dairy policy that actually addresses one region of the country where their average dairy may be 40, 45 cows, versus a region of the country like the one that I happen to represent, where our average dairy is almost 600 cows. With the Vitter amendment, which is a step in the right direction, he is still about half the size of the average dairy in my district. That makes it totally unworkable in terms of my district. The details of this particular plan, I think we could debate through the night, whether they are good or bad, but I can tell the gentleman from Vermont that I have no idea what the impact is going to be on California, on Vermont, on Wisconsin, Minnesota or anyone else. I saw this for the first time yesterday. I have not seen any of the economic analysis on this. I have no idea how it is going to impact the average family farmer, whether that be in his district or mine. Until we have the opportunity to sit down and actually figure out what the impacts are, what the impact is going to be on overall production, if you are going to go up to a $17 price, does that increase the amount of production in this country? What happens to the average dairy size in California? Do we all of a sudden go from 600 to 300 and take twice as much land so that every dairy qualifies for the program? There are a lot of questions that are unanswered. Unless we have the opportunity to go through the regular process, to have the committee hold hearings on this, to look at the economic analysis, unfortunately there is no way at this point that I could support this legislation. As I said, I appreciate the job that the gentleman did. I appreciate the effort. I look forward to working with him in the future because I do think that this is a place that we can start and we may be able to move on from here. But at this time there is just no possible way that this amendment should be included in the farm bill.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening, I opposed this amendment with mixed emotions because I basically support the idea; but it is much more complicated than we can solve in an amendment to the farm bill this evening. I would like to answer a couple of objections or questions that have been raised. This is not a food safety issue. If Members are afraid of imports in terms of food safety, then that is a completely different part of Federal law that Members have to look at. When Members are voting on trade bills, we can talk about food safety coming in. That has nothing to do with country of origin. It is handled by a completely different part of Federal law. The other issue is what the cost is. This has been brought up, what the cost is. The retailer is limited as to what they can charge. Somebody brought up that they had stuff coming in from Mexico or other foreign countries into their districts. That sets the price. That sets the market. If we put another cost on top of that, our producers are going to pay that cost, not the retailer. Mr. Chairman, we have to weigh this thing in its entirety, we cannot just come up with an amendment like this.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman and I discussed earlier off the floor, I do think that it is time that we start looking at whether or not we need a Federal order system, whether the Federal Government should be involved at all, because if we are going to adopt a number of compacts, if we are going to have these state-run systems, quite frankly, the Federal taxpayer should not be the one who has to absorb the mistakes of all of these systems. If that is the direction we are going to go, if Congress in its infinite wisdom decides we are going to allow compacts and we are going to allow States to adopt their own system, then the Federal taxpayer should not be expected to bail them out when they make a mistake. So I will work with the gentleman. We will work toward putting a bill together that tries to accomplish that. We will hold hearings on it, and we will open the debate and allow the Congress to work its will.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I reluctantly rise in opposition because I do support the idea of doing country-of-origin labeling. Unfortunately, I do not believe that at this time this topic should move forward on the farm bill. This is an issue that we have had numerous hearings on in my subcommittee and in the Committee on Agriculture in the last several years because it is something that people care so deeply about. But, unfortunately, we have been unable to reach consensus in the industry as to the proper way to proceed with doing this. There are big differences within the industry, whether we are talking about producers or processors, or the retailers themselves; but there are also big differences between the producers themselves. Some are very much in favor of moving forward, some are opposed to doing that, and there are a number of different ideas as to how and what the best way to proceed with doing country-of-origin labeling is. Some of the issues that we have had to deal with in the past couple of years have made it very difficult to reach that consensus. I can tell my colleagues that we have had testimony in the committee that about 70 percent of the cost of proceeding with a program such as this will go back to the producers themselves in the form of lower prices. They end up absorbing the cost of this program. In the limited programs such as this that have been used in the statewide example and others, they have seen very little, if any, net return back to the producers themselves. I can also say that GAO estimates that FDA's compliance cost for fruit and vegetables would be about $56 million per year. So this is not a no-cost program. It is an expensive program. At this time I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have the time be equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed in great detail the gentleman's amendment. I do not oppose in concept what the gentleman is trying to do, but I do have some concerns with some of the language that is in the bill and some of the impacts nationwide of his amendment. I would like to ask the gentleman if he would be willing to make this a pilot program to work on the language and withdraw his amendment. If he is willing to do that, I would do everything in my power to rewrite the amendment and to work with the gentleman and to try to get this included in the final bill in conference.

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

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I am trying to figure out what the gentleman's amendment will do.

Mr. POMBO. So what we are talking about is the Class I milk would be the same price, whether you are in Wisconsin or Vermont?

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to be honest with ourselves. The reason that we have a Federal agriculture policy at all is to provide a dependable, abundant supply of cheap food for the American people. That is why we do this. I think that if you look at this amendment and what the impact of the underlying policy goal of Federal ag policy, what the impact would be on that, you have to go to the very source. They take millions of acres of land out of production. Now, some people may like that. Some people may not. But the truth is, is that it puts us in the position of providing less food and fiber for the consumption of the American people, because you are taking millions of acres of land out of production. I heard earlier in the debate somebody said that we want to give more money to our family farmers, that we want more money for them. And somehow, in the twisted logic, they think that putting them out of business gets more money to them. It does not work that way. We also heard on the debate on dairy earlier about how much people cared about their small dairy farmers. What do you think your small dairy farmers are going to think when their grain prices double or triple or more, because the guys who were producing their grain now put their land in CRP or put their land in wetlands reserve or put their land in one of these biological corridor things that you guys are cooking up in this? The impact on the dairy farmers is going to be immense. Now, you want to take care of that. You put rotational grazing in there. Just on the back of an envelope trying to figure this out, I figure it is going to take 200 to 300 million acres of land in this country to do rotational grazing with the current dairy stock that we have; 200 to 300 million acres. But we are not going to have that because we are taking it out of production.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, at 9:43 A.M. on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, I was atop the United States Capitol giving a tour of the Capitol Dome when I saw a burst of fire, then a mushroom cloud and smoke billowing out of the Pentagon. At first, I though the explosion occurred in nearby housing developments. It could not be the Pentagon. But no, it was much too close. The Pentagon was on fire. I left my office exactly one minute before the second airliner crashed into the World Trade Center, and I did not know at first that the United States had been the victim of terrorist attacks. Quickly, though, I could see that something was terribly wrong and was ushered out of the Capitol to safety. Like everyone else, I was shocked and saddened at the events of that day. These were senseless and cowardly attacks on our freedom and our liberty. These acts will not go unpunished. We, as Americans, have a tremendous ability to join together and unite in times of need. We have seen this in the record number of citizens throughout the nation rushing to blood banks to donate blood. My district office in Stockton, California, has been flooded with calls from people wanting to help. In 1994, when we were faced with the potential of sending United States forces into Bosnia, and again in 1998 facing a potential conflict with Iraq, I presented five parameters to guide decisions to commit our armed forces to overseas conflict. We must: 1. Protect territories belonging to the United States. 2. Preserve our political and economic system from foreign threats. 3. Keep sea lanes open for trade, and maintain free and voluntary trade between the United States and trading partners. 4. Prevent domination of strategic areas of the globe by powers hostile to the existence and interests of the United States. 5. Safeguard Americans and their property from acts of terrorism. These acts have hurt each and every one of us, but our resolve is unshaken and our courage as a people is solid. And so, our duty as a nation is to unite behind President George W. Bush to take whatever steps necessary to apprehend these cowardly thugs and bring a swift and just punishment. To the families, who have either received the news of the death of a loved one, or are holding out hope that their loved one will be recovered safely, my prayers, and the prayers of all Americans are with you. I knew one of the victims, and understand the pain. I stand firmly behind our President in this hour of crisis. The United States of America will continue to shine as a beacon of hope and freedom to nations throughout the world. There is nothing any terrorist can ever do to change our Democracy. May God bless America.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the Alliance for America (AFA) was organized in 1991 as a national non-profit grassroots coalition. Over the years, AFA has worked diligently to curb excessive government environmental regulations and to ensure the Constitutional rights of compensation for property owners. AFA networks its mission in fifty states working with hundreds of organizations with a combined membership in the millions. These groups represent a variety of vocational, cultural and political interests including: (1) farming; (2) ranching; (3) grazing; (4) forestry; (5) commercial fisherman; (6) mining; (7) recreation; (8) energy; and (9) animal welfare. In May 2001, AFA held its 11th Annual Fly-In for Freedom conference in Washington, DC. At the meeting, various measures were addressed and passed by the Alliance, including resolutions dealing with renewable whaling resources and the Marine Manimal Protection Act of 1972. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I hereby submit to the Record Record for my colleagues consideration two resolutions unanimously adopted by AFA at its conference--the Resolution on Renewable Whale Resources and the Resolution to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Let me conclude by saying that although there are many different opinions on these issues, I applaud the efforts of AFA and I truly believe they do make a positive difference in our society. Alliance for America, Fly-In for Freedom, Washington, DC, May 19-23, 2001

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and conclude by saying that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the ranking member from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) deserve to be commended for crafting a sound bill, and I want to thank them for their tireless efforts and work on this bill.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Alabama about two very important water projects in my district that I believe deserve to receive Federal funding during the fiscal year 2002 appropriations process. Let me begin by talking about the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District fish screen project. This project is located at the entrance to the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District intake channel on the San Joaquin River. The Banta-Carbona Irrigation District is required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to put a fish screen facility on the San Joaquin River to protect the delta smelt, steelhead, fall run chinook salmon, and the splittail. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has required the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District to facilitate the funding, design, and construction of this fish barrier screen facility with little or no assistance. Without the fish screen project, the Banta- Carbona Irrigation District's agricultural water diversions could be shut down by these Federal agencies. During the 107th Congress, the gentleman and I talked about the importance of providing the BCI District with the much-needed financial assistance to help defray the construction, operation, and maintenance costs of this fish screen facility. Unfortunately, no Federal funding was included in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. After speaking with the gentleman about this request, the gentleman very kindly informed me about the difficulties his subcommittee was up against when it comes to appropriating funds for new start-up projects. While I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this to my attention, I would simply ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development if he would be willing to work with me to ensure that the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District receive some form of assistance in fiscal year 2002 to help them with the project.

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman; and with regard to the second project known as the Farmington Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, let me point out that the Stockton East Water District and its neighbors pump from a critically overdrafted groundwater basin in my district. The district also faces saline intrusion of up to 100 feet per year from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. This pending environmental disaster threatens the drinking supply of 300,000 residents and the $1.3 billion agricultural economy of my district. The Farmington Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project addresses this problem. It is important for my colleagues to know that the WRDA of 1996 authorized a study to look at converting Farmington Dam into a storage facility for Stockton East Water District. Further, WRDA of 1999 authorized $25 million for conjunctive use and groundwater recharge projects within the Stockton East Water District. This study concluded that a demonstration project should be the next step. I support the efforts of the Stockton East Water District, and I am requesting the gentleman's support of up to $2.5 million in fiscal year 2002 for the project.

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.