amendme amendment. it's important to some people. i would encourage the gentleman if he would be willing to yield to the gentleman from iowa, and i yield back. >> i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from iowa. >> thank you very much. and thank you, congressman king for those excellent remarks because that pretty well paints a picture and this ought to be considered and reevaluated. for example, in the counties that either one of us represent and i have farmers that moved over there and they get a hold of me and they're going to be required to join the county and -- guess what? they're going to have to hire more people and they'll have to fix up the parking lot and so they'll charge more rent for the building and it's not going save any money at all. what is the good, common sense here? we're just asking to take a breath and let's stop and let's reconsider this, and let's give us some time and as it has been stated is give the secretary an

opportunity to go in there and take a look at the efficiencies and the needs and try to do this right. if it's still the determination, i have more to say about it. yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman holding the underlying time yields back and the request for recognition will proceed to a vote on amendment number 71 by mr. boswell. all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed signify by saying no. >> no! >> ayes seem to have it. >> the ayes appear to have it. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do, indeed have it and the amendment is adopted and amendment number 71 by mr. boswell. are there any additional amendments to title 1, the commodity title? seeing no additional amendments,

commodity from title number one, the commodity title is now closed. are there -- with the closing of title number 1 we now proceed to consideration of title number two. since title number 2 deals with the conservation section i would offer the following suggestion to my colleagues for your consideration. it's now in order to consider title number two. i would ask unanimous consent that the explanation of the title be waived. seeing no objection. seeing no objection. seeing no objection, the title is now open for amendment. are there amendments to title number two, the conservation title?

seeing no amendments. i would say we would begin the process of record the title, a withdrawal would give the request, would be here and i'm sure he'll be here promptly and if he does not have a chance to return we'll withdraw the title. will council proceed with the explanation of title number two. >> mr. chairman, title to conservation, sub title a, conservation reserve program. it extends the conservation reserve program. subsection b adz ads grasslands. subsection c amends the requirement for certain lands to

consider planted to an agricultural commodity. subsection d, incrementally reduces the acreage cape to 25 million acres in fy-2017 and that's authority for enrollment of 2 million acreses of grass lands giving priority to aspiring contracts. subsection e eliminates extension option for hardwood trees as well as the additional one-year extension for contracts. subsection f makes the conservation priority area watersheds and leaving ability to designate a priority area to the secretary. section 2002, reauthorizes the wet lands program while decreasing the cap from 1 million to 750,000 acres. section 2003 eliminates the option for conservation plan to provide for permanent retirement of existing base. section 2004 requires the secretary to allow for certain harvesting, grazing and commercial use of forage in

exchange for reduction in rental rate at not less than 25% except for cases of drought and other natural disasters which have no reduction. this section in subsection for grazing practices on grass land specifically. it adds provision for individuals with aspiring contracts with land improvement practices in the final year of the contract with the reduction in rental value. >> council, the chair would ask to suspend and i would once again put the question to the group since it is now in order to consider title 2, i ask unanimous consent that the explanation be waived. seeing no objection, no objection, no objection, the title is now open for amendment. are there amendments and does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. thank you, chairman -- this is amendment number two. >> correct. >> which should be distributed.

please proceed whenever you're prepared. >> yes. chairman, locust and ranking member peterson i thank you for organizing the markup today. i think this is an important effort to work together on the bipartisan fashion on behalf of the american agriculture. this particular amendment deal with the environmental quality and city program they think, on balance, when we reflect over the last four years since the 2008 reauthorization has worked quite successfully. this would benefit american farmers, ranchers and daremen w dairy men who continue to do the good work they do. it's for that reason that the amendment to the program otherwise referred to as a quip provides innovation for grants and payments for air quality concerns for agriculture operations through the fiscal years 2013 and 2017.

this funding would provide $37.5 billion within the program for opportunities to improve air quality and public health that is already in the last 2008 foreign bill proved to be very successful. the provisions and priorities, a small amount of funding to assist farmers in the epa area is currently in 174 countiecoun particularly in nine states across the country to address serious air quality concerns from agriculture operations to help them meet their requirements as it relates to dust control levels and pm 10 and pm 2.5. this would provide opportunities for farmers within dealing within rcs to be able to continue partnering and highly efficient approaches for tackling the nation's most severe air quality challenges in those non-attainment zones.

we've had great success in the last three years in california. we've had 1100 agricultural producers and implement projects that have significantly reduced as much as five times per day the equivalent of an essence removing 408,000 cars from the highways. that's the level of air quality improvement. let me just finally say that this provision prioritizes a small amount of the funding to assist farmers in the following epa non-attainment areas that include arizona, colorado, illinois, montana, new york, ohio, pennsylvania and texas, not limited to those states, but those are the areas where the key non-attainment conditions exist, but addition, it would help meet regulatory requirements and produce, for example, $3.5 billion in texas, $3.9 in pennsylvania and $2.3

million in ohio. i ask for an adoption of this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. is there additional request for the gentleman from california? seeks recognition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized. -- i would move to strike the last word. i would associate myself from mr. costa's remarks saying these dollars are an effort to allow farmers to deal with some of the burdens and regulations that they are saddled with. we all sat here previous months and meetings when we've tried to reign in and get epa to understand the plight of farmers. farmers are oftentimes are put at severe risk and burden under overregulation by this agency and this helps us comply with some federal mandates and i'd highly recommend that we adopt

this measure that mr. costa has brought forward. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes himself to strike the last word and is recognized for five minutes. equip is the principal source of financial assistance and cost share payments for agriculture producer who wish to implement conservation practices to meet or prevent environmental regulation. this has been one of the environmentally beneficial programs that usda has administered with producers in all 50 states participating to achieve the environmental benefits. the program's goal, of course, is to optimize environmental benefits by assisting producers in compliant, concerning soil, water and air quality while groundwater conservation. in rcs, influence equipped by establishing national priorities to reflect the most pressing and

natural resource needs and to emphasize the offset benefits to the environment. state conservation must implement state priorities to implement local needs of the environment. air quality is one of the three top priorities in equip. congress does not need to mandate funding for one resource concern or another and bear this in mind. if you don't live in an area with air quality concerns with the adoption of this language you will have to compete with your funding from a smaller, overall pool of funds. equip is a heavily oversubscribed program and fy-11 over 40,000 applications were not funded due to a lack of funding. states should be deciding where equip money goes and not d.c., carving out a certain pot of money for a certain resource need. you have to wonder what's the next issue, soil erosion in oklahoma very close to my heart and water quality in the great

lakes and i understand my friends from california and the reasons for doing this, i believe air quality is already air quality in california and therefore i must, with great regrets oppose the carveout tha would entail. with that, i yield back. or -- with that, i yield back. does anyone else seek recognition? seeing no -- >> point of clarification, mr. chairman. can i move -- >> point of clarification. >> this amendment that proposed is unlike the earlier conversation that would require a carveout. this conforms with the senate language in the measure, and as we have discussed, it doesn't require a carveout for any of the nine states as it relates to the air quality measures. so i do think it's important to make that clarification.

there was a previous suggestion that, in fact, would have designated a percentage of the funds to be december ig nasigna for the purpose of the air quality purposes. this follows the amendment that was adopted on the senate side. >> gentleman yields back the balance of time. seeing -- seeing no additional requests for recognition. we'll proceed to vote on amendment number two. all those signify, support by saying yes? all those oppose indicate their opposition by saying no? through my deaf ear, the nos appear to have it. gentleman request a roll call. the clerk will call the roll on amendment number two by the

gentlewom gentlewoman from california. >> mr. goodlatte, mr. johnson, mr. king, mr. king, no, mr. naugebauer. mr. conway -- >> no. >> mr. conawway -- >> no. >> mrs. schmidt? no. mr. thompson? mr. thompson, no. mr. rooney? mr. rooney, no. mr. stusman, no. mr. gibbs, mr. gibbs, no. mr. tipton? mr. tipton, yes. mr. sutherland. mr. sutherland, no. mr. crawford? mr. crawford, no. mrs. robey? mrs. robey, no. mr. hulescamp, no.

mrs. elmers? mr. gibson? >> yes. >> mr. gibson, yes. mr. hultgren, no. mrs. hartsler, no. mr. shilling? mr. shilling, no. mr. ribble? mr. ribble, no. mrs. nome? mrs. nome, no. mr. peterson? mr. holden? mr. holden, no. mr. mcentire? >> no. >> mr. mcintyre, no. mr. boswell? mr. bacca? yes. mr. car doze za. mr. david scott, yes. mr. quayar, yes.

mr. costa? mr. costa, yes. mr. walls, mr. walls, yes. mr. schrader, mr. schrader, yes. mr. kissle, mr. kissle, yes. mr. owens, mr. owens, yes. miss pingree? miss pingree, yes. mr. courtney? >> yes. >> mr. courtney, yes. mr. welch? mr. welch, yes. miss fudge? mr. sublon? mr. sublon, yes. miss sewell? miss sewell, yes. mr. mcgovern? mr. mcgovern, yes. mr. goodlatte? mr. goodlatte, no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson, no. mr. naugabauer? mr. naugabauer, no.

miss elmers? mr. peterson? mr. peterson, no. miss fudge? mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, the vote is 18 ayes, 26 nays. >> amendment number two is defeated. are there additional amendments to title two, the conservation title? seeing no additional amoment m to title number two. title number two the conservation title is now closed. title number three, a trade.

now it's in order to consider title number three. i ask unanimous consent that the explanation of the title be waived. seeing no objection. seeing no objection. the title is open to amendment. are there amendments to title number three? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from florida seeks recognition. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> gentleman, what is the amendment number? >> 77. >> 77. the clerk will distribute amendment number 77. the gentleman may proceed when he's ready. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to strike the last word. >> gentleman's recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, today i'm offering an amendment along with with my good friend and colleague, mr. cardoza of

california which addresses a critical need relative to the trade function at usda. every member on this committee knows the agricultural sector has been and continues to be a major contributor to the nation's overall level of export and is one of only a few sectors of the economy that traditionally has had a positive net trade balance. u.s. agricultural exports make an important contribution toward supporting farm income and have stabilized -- have a stabilizing influence on the entire agricultural sector. however, past successes for the growth of agricultural exports can not be taken for granted and are no guarantee for the future. to on the the expand the exports, u.s. share will require high level of leadership, focus and commitment on the part of the usda and federal government. there are many challenges in the international agricultural trade arena affecting both exports as well as imports.

to deal with these challenges will require high level of effective and qualified leadership as well as an enduring long-term commitment to the goal of expanding trade and bringing together the necessary resources and expertise to resolve trade issues as they emerge. so for these reasons today, we're offering an amendment which will require the secretary to establish an undersecretary for foreign agricultural services at usda. currently, the undersecretary for farm and foreign agricultural services has a limited span of control over the wide range of usda department-wide international activities and the skillset for these two main functions in the domestic farm policy and international agricultural trade and promotion mission areas are different and recruiting someone who could fulfill both sets of skills is difficult if not impossible. now is the time to create a new undersecretary for foreign agricultural services who will provide a full time singular

focus on trade, allow for more effective coordination, ensure a high level of representation, and make it easier to recruit qualified talent. i also want to point out it's not our intention for the creation of this undersecretary position to create the need for additional personnel or appropriations for usda. we stand ready to work with the chair and ranking member on report language to make this intention as clear and explicit as possible. i appreciate my colleagues' support for this amendment and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. does any other member -- the gentleman from california? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to strike the last word. >> gentleman's recognized for five minutes. >> mr. gentleman, i want to point out usda's trade function has not been significant he reorganized since 1978 which is

34 years ago. since that time, the value and nature of u.s. agricultural exports has changed dramatically. in 1978, u.s. agriculture exports totaled $2 billi9 billi. in 2011, $136 billion. in 1978, agriculture contributed $14 billion positively toward our balance of payments. in 2011, u.s. agriculture contributed nearly three times that much at $37 billion. positively toward our trade in balance, balance of payments. meanwhile, over the last 30 years the challenges that u.s. agriculture faces in global markets have dramatically changed from tariff barriers to other nonh-tariff barriers. mr. chairman, ranking member peterson, yes, this amendment would require an undersecretary for foreign ag services. what i want to make clear, we'll work with with usda to ensure

this will occur in a thoughtful, inclusive and deliberate manner. to this end, i would like to enter into the record a letter signed by 25 major food and ag organizations expressing their support to establish an undersecretary for foreign agricultural services. included among the signers are the american farm bureau, american meat institute, idfa, the national cattleman's beef association, the corn growers negotiation, the council of farm cooperatives, usa rice federation and the western growers association. furthermore, if not all the living former secretaries of agriculture have embraced this idea of establishing an undersecretary for foreign ag services. finally, mr. chairman, let me further point out to the committee that this amendment will have no cost. yet over 20 years from today it will be -- it will move forward with this amendment and implement it as a part of the 2012 farm bill. it could well be one of the finest things we accomplish in

the entire bill. we will have brought a single focus to trade policy, trade negotiations, trade promotion programs at usda and put it all under one secretary who would be qualified to handle the challenges, opportunities inherent in agricultural trade which awaits us in the decades ahead. i want to thank my colleague, mr. rooney, my friend and colleague, we serve together in livestock committee. we worked together very well and we have noted that this is a deficiency in current operations. frankly, in almost every trade agreement that i've objected to, it's because of the lack of attention to agriculture needs and trade and i would encourage the committee to support this amendment and i would yield back the remainder of my time as i request and insert this letter into the record. >> gentleman, request, unanimous consent his letter be noted in the record.

see no objection so ordered. gentleman yields back the balance of his time. is there additional request for recognition? the gentleman from connecticut. to recognize, move to strike the last word? >> move to strike the last word. >> recognized for five minutes. >> i support the intent of this amendment. i am somewhat concerned about the fact that we have through the u.s. department of commerce, in my opinion, an effective export assistance program and embassies all over the world. i've been on trade missions with connecticut agricultural interest as well as non-ag interests. they have gold key programs that set up, again, opportunities with customers in creating markets and other parts of the world. i just sort of wonder whether we're just kind of adding another layer here in terms of bringing in another department to deal with issues of export when the department of commerce, again, has that mission already to assist u.s. private sector interests in terms of promoting new markets and customers. and i would yield to the

proponent just to ask him whether or not, you know, this -- how do you visualize this, or, you know, see this in terms of the efforts that are already under way for export assistance through the department of commerce? >> i just yielded to mr. rooney for a question. >> gentleman yields to the gentleman of florida. >> i would just simply say that it's not the intent, certainly, of this amendment to have overlap or be, you know, duplicitous with the department of commerce. this -- this was simply a request to make clear under the usda separate from the existing position of the undersecretary that it was increasingly difficult to have somebody that could do both things effectively. so this was the request made,

and, you know, organizationally, secretary vilsack i have here proposed to reorganize all agency trade functions within the administration. we urge him to continue to keep doing foreign service -- foreign agricultural service within the usda, but, and i think this is the point, that should not prevent the usda from supporting a much needed change to its trade function which will effectively position the usda to address the trade challenges and enormous opportunities that await us in decades ahead. so, i don't think that that's duplicative with the department of commerce, but that was certainly -- that's certainly not the intent. >> reclaiming my time as, chairman, again, i will support the amendment but i hope maybe as this sort of gets, moves along, that, you know, the department is given guidance

that they really should work together with the department of commerce because they have, in my opinion, a fabulous infrastructure, already, as i said, all over the world in terms of connecting u.s. exporters with new customers and opportunities. and with that understanding, which it sounds like your answer is not adversarial to then, i would support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there additional requests for recognition on this gentleman, the ranking member, strike the last word? >> mr. chairman, i vote to strike the last word. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i have a request from the former member of the committee who has a letter to you and i regarding the food for peace program and so forth. which i am not entirely in favor of, but as a courtesy to him, i ask that it be made part of the record. it has to do with the walling

off of food aid. we in the '08 bill, tried to get more of it to go to development of agriculture as opposed to just giving away food. apparently the foreign affairs committee wants us to eliminate that so they can give more food away as opposed to actually teaching people how to grow food which i don't really agree with. but as a courtesy, i think we should make it part of the record. >> gentleman's position is personally acknowledged by unanimous consent. the letter is officially added to the record. >> and we have a letter here from a number of different groups, i think, regarding the ir issue that mr. cardoza, and that we're pushing and they want that made part of the record. >> unanimous consent, seeing no objection. order added to the record. with that, the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.