[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 29, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8978-H8996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                AGRICULTURAL RISK PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). Pursuant to House Resolution 
308 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2559.

                              {time}  1135


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2559) to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act, to strengthen the 
safety net for agricultural producers by providing greater access to 
more affordable risk management tools and improve protection from 
production and income loss, to improve the efficiency and integrity of 
the Federal crop insurance program, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we consider H.R. 2559, the Agriculture Risk 
Protection Act of 1999. This important legislation was approved by a 
voice vote in the subcommittee and the full committee and enjoys broad 
bipartisan support from colleagues representing farmers and ranchers 
from all regions of the country. Equally important, I am pleased to 
report that this bill fully complies within the budget resolution 
approved by the Congress earlier this year.
  As my colleagues know, this country's farmers and ranchers are not 
experiencing the prosperity that other Americans enjoy today. 
Confronted by adverse weather and low prices, they are facing a second 
year of extreme economic crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two ways a farmer or rancher can lose money. 
That is where a strong farm safety net is needed. The culprits are low 
prices and lost production, and, sadly, both of these culprits are at 
work again this year.
  On the price side of the equation, just as examples, cotton is 
expected to receive the lowest price in 13 years; wheat the lowest in 
22 years; and soybeans the lowest in a quarter century. Fortunately, in 
an effort to avert a financial disaster in farm country, the House and 
Senate are working together to provide an emergency farm relief 
package.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the short-term assistance provided in the 
fiscal year 2000 agricultural appropriations bill is urgently needed 
and will bring our Nation's farmers and ranchers at least some peace of 
mind. But make no mistake, ad hoc relief of any kind will not bring 
about a long-term solution to chronic problems. That is why I have 
announced the committee's intention to convene a series of hearings 
early next year to evaluate current and future American farm policy. By 
providing our farmers and ranchers an opportunity to fully participate 
in this process, we will steer clear of the kind of fixes in farm 
policy that are made in haste and ultimately do more harm than good.
  On the other side of the equation, there is something Congress can do 
now about severe crop losses that each year rob farmers and ranchers of 
their livelihood. After more than 8 months of input from farmers and 
ranchers on the problems with crop insurance, Congress is in a position 
to act.
  The Federal crop insurance program was created in 1938, but it was 
not a case where the government intruded on the private sector thinking 
it could do better. Instead, the program came about because countless 
private sector attempts at crop insurance had failed miserably. Without 
a Federal commitment, the widespread losses associated with natural 
disasters would make something as fundamental as insurance protection 
simply unavailable to our farmers.
  Unfortunately, during its 61 years of existence, this critical 
program has been both underfunded and seriously undermined by ad hoc 
disaster. This dual policy has fueled a vicious cycle that has not 
saved taxpayers money but cost them countless billions. By underfunding 
the crop insurance program, farmer-paid premiums have been 
unaffordable, leading to a Nation of underinsured farmers at best and 
uninsured farmers at worst.
  For years, the practical effect of this policy has been that farmers 
who do not buy crop insurance or buy too little leave Congress little 
choice but to enact ad hoc disaster bills; and in the following year, 
farmers who had insured their crops the year before decide not to, 
trusting that Congress will once again come through.
  This vicious cycle has seriously undermined the crop insurance 
program. It has eroded program participation and fueled the need for 
Congress to

[[Page H8979]]

pass costly, unbudgeted ad hoc disaster in every year but three since 
1985, at a cost totaling more than $30 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, while this is by no stretch a desired effect, it is 
totally understandable when you consider that many of America's farmers 
just cannot afford crop insurance.
  Mr. Chairman, reducing the need for ad hoc assistance and putting an 
end to this vicious cycle is my aim with respect to all of Federal farm 
policy. With respect to crop loss assistance that is exactly what H.R. 
2559 sets out to do.
  Three provisions of H.R. 2559 alone go a long way in effectively 
reducing the future need for ad hoc disaster. These provisions simply 
allow farmers who already buy crop insurance to buy better coverage and 
encourages those who have usually relied on the government for help to 
instead rely on themselves.
  First, H.R. 2559 makes across-the-board reductions in farmer-paid 
premiums. In fact, without passage of this bill, crop insurance 
premiums for every farmer in America will automatically increase by 30 
percent.
  Second, the bill makes insurance that protects price as well as 
production more affordable to our farmers.
  Third, the bill helps farmers who are hit hard by multiyear disasters 
to insure more of the yield that they have proven that they can grow. 
These are obvious but important changes that farmers from all regions, 
growing all crops, have said that they need.
  But H.R. 2559 also recognizes that no matter what amount of premium 
assistance the government provides, if the insurance policy itself does 
not work for a farmer, the Federal crop insurance program is flawed. 
H.R. 2559 responds to calls from farmers from all regions to increase 
the number of crops that are served by crop insurance and to improve 
the quality of coverage to crops that are already being served.
  By promoting new policy research and development, by expediting the 
policy approval process, and by helping farmers buy these new policies 
H.R. 2559 works to ensure that all farmers can count on crop insurance.
  There are many other provisions contained in this bill that give 
committee members reason to be proud. The bill provides risk management 
assistance to livestock producers for the first time ever and 
eliminates an agency-imposed black dirt policy that has prevented 
farmers from planting perfectly good ground. I am particularly pleased 
with the farmers who came forward and helped us write tough antifraud 
and antiwaste and abuse provisions that crack down on those who would 
dare to farm this program.
  Mr. Chairman, in short, H.R. 2559 is a fiscally sound bill that is in 
keeping with the commitment of this Congress to safeguard our balanced 
budget while strengthening the safety net for our Nation's farmers and 
ranchers.
  I would call to the attention of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, and at 
the appropriate time would ask for inclusion into the Record, of a 
variety of letters from many, many farm groups and commodity groups 
that I will have for the Members to review in support of the efforts of 
the committee and in support of the bill on the floor.
  I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2559.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2559. I want to thank the 
chairman for the work that he has put in to this bill and for the 
inclusion of the minority and all members of the committee in the 
development of its provisions. The gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Combest); the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Ewing), the 
subcommittee chairman; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), 
the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee; are all to be commended for 
their efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill succeeds in spending the funds that were 
allotted in the fiscal year 2000 budget. While it was the will of our 
committee that these funds should be dedicated to improvements in our 
current crop insurance program, the Congressional budget resolution 
made funds available for the broader purposes of income assistance and 
for risk management and, in so doing, provided a level of flexibility 
that would permit nearly any kind of agricultural assistance.
  The bill before us today, however, does not recognize that 
flexibility. In a rare moment, at a time when the congressional budget 
actually allows us to increase the amount spent on farm programs 
without having to offset them, the bill spends all of its money on 
yield insurance and ignores the many other needs facing agriculture.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Chairman, these budgeted funds came on the heels of last year's 
$6 billion in emergency agricultural spending. Even as we speak, 
appropriators in conference are finalizing a proposal to designated 
over $8 billion as emergency spending to compensate for economic 
circumstances that were entirely foreseeable. The fact that 2 years in 
a row we are compensating producers for low prices seems to me to be a 
stark admission that our basic farm program is not working, just as 
yield disaster aid shows that crop insurance is not working.
  Increases in the budget were a clear signal by our colleagues that 
these problems, income reductions as well as yield reductions, need to 
be addressed. Our Nation deserves a long-term, reliable farm policy. 
Taxpayers and agricultural producers alike should be able to know up 
front what kind of assistance they can expect and what the rules will 
be for distributing it.
  In terms of yield insurance, this bill makes some progress. Higher 
subsidy rates, for example, will lead to higher levels of participation 
in crop insurance and better indemnity performance for the producers 
who participate.
  Absent from the bill, Mr. Chairman, is the other half of the picture. 
Last year, our programs left producers overexposed to price and weather 
disasters. This bill makes progress toward addressing yield disaster. 
But what about price disaster? How much more will our Government spend 
on ad hoc, supplemental AMTA payments before we realize that a more 
rational, predictable policy needs to be in force?
  Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer an amendment that addresses the 
total revenue picture for program crops. Because the score from CBO 
came in at a higher level than expected, I will not offer it at this 
time. However, I am committed to exploring all avenues in order to 
provide this type of assistance in a budgetarily responsible manner.
  I will describe it now in the hope of encouraging my colleagues to 
give it their consideration as we continue to debate long-term farm 
policy.
  My proposal would establish a system that would allow for 
supplemental income payments, SIP. Producers who planted crop would 
receive a payment for a crop year if national revenue for the crop 
falls significantly below the most recent 5-year average. Payouts would 
occur if national prices are low or if a national production is low. A 
supplemental income program can work for our producers and for 
taxpayers as well. It is a simple program under which payments would go 
directly to actual producers in time of need.
  It is the kind of long-term approach we should be using to address 
agriculture's cyclical problems. H.R. 2559 does increase the subsidy 
provided to the current revenue products that address price drops 
within a crop year. However, it does nothing to protect producers from 
severe downturns in income from year to year.
  The supplemental income program would complement existing farm 
programs and the changes made to the crop insurance program by 
providing a complete risk-management package.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I want to commend the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Combest) and all members of the Committee on Agriculture for their 
work on this bill thus far. Going into this process, we agreed that 
short-term changes in crop insurance this year would pave the way for a 
broad look at the entire program in the years ahead. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in developing a crop insurance program that 
works better and a farm revenue program that meets producer and 
taxpayer needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who is a very valuable member of 
our committee.

[[Page H8980]]

  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2559, the 
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 1999. It is a great first step to 
help our struggling farmers, and I would like for my complete statement 
to be made a part of the Record at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is the culmination of months of work by the 
Agriculture Committee in trying to form policy that would give 
producers from all regions of the country a better way to manage risk.
  Producers have to manage two types of risk, price fluctuation and 
weather related disasters. I believe this bill reforms the federal crop 
insurance program to more adequately address the risk management needs 
of agricultural producers when it comes to protecting yield.
  One of the problems with the current system was the program was being 
underutilized. Producers chose not to participate because crop 
insurance was too expensive for too little coverage. H.R. 2559 makes 
coverage more affordable by building upon the additional premium 
assistance that was provided by the Omnibus Appropriations bill of 
1998. By increasing the government's share of the premium's cost, we 
can dramatically increase participation in this crucial program.
  In addition, the bill provides assistance for innovative policies 
that protect against lost revenue or rising costs of production. Right 
now, current law prevents federal assistance on that portion of the 
policy, making these policies too costly for most farmers.
  A viable crop insurance program must achieve broad-based 
participation across all potential production risk levels. Crop 
insurance participation is lower among so-called low risk producers 
because it is not cost effective for a producer to have insurance if he 
never files a claim. This bill changes that by allowing performance 
based discounts for those low risk producers.
  The bill also addresses the need for adjustment in Actual Production 
History to assist farmers affected by disasters. Actual Production 
History serves as a guide for determining how much protection a 
producer can receive. Producers are currently punished two fold by 
natural disasters. One being the actual crop loss and two the permanent 
damage to a producer's production history making it harder for a 
producer to get adequate coverage for his crop.
  One provision that is especially crucial to Southern producers is the 
provision that revokes the prevented planting policy. Currently, if a 
producer collects an indemnity because he is unable to get a crop into 
the ground, he is prevented from planting a second crop, possibly one 
with a shorter growing season. This bill strikes that language, but 
also provides safeguards against manipulation of the system.
  In addition, the committee found far too many cases of fraud and 
abuse of the crop insurance program. To improve program compliance, the 
bill increases the punishment for fraud, including assessing a fine up 
to the value of the false claim or $10,000, whichever is higher, and a 
producer would be banned from all farm programs for five years.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill addresses many of the inadequacies of the 
current program, making crop insurance more attractive to many more 
producers, but more must be done. This is a step in the right direction 
of letting farmers effectively manage their production risk. I ask all 
my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, what time did I consume, and how much time 
do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) consumed 7 
minutes and has 23 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Ewing), a very valuable member of the committee, the 
subcommittee chair with jurisdiction over this subject, and cosponsor 
of the bill on crop insurance.
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, it seems that ever since I have been in 
Congress and been a part of the Committee on Agriculture, which has 
been five terms, we have been working on crop insurance. I know this is 
not the first bill that we have passed on crop insurance in those five 
terms, but I think it is the best bill; and I think we have made 
continued progress over the years. So I rise today in very strong 
support of H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 1999.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research, and 
Specialty Crops, which has jurisdiction over the Federal crop insurance 
program, improving Federal crop insurance has long been a priority for 
me. H.R. 2559 is the result of many hours of work to try and give 
farmers better and more affordable coverage.
  We also intend to make USDA more efficient in administering the 
program, while at the same time cutting down on fraud and abuse. 
Finally, we hope to give producers, producer organizations, insurance 
companies, and universities the ability to work together to create 
better, more workable crop insurance policies.
  The subcommittee conducted a series of hearings all over the country 
last year and the year before that were designed to gather information 
from producers as to what was wrong with our crop insurance program.
  We had hearings in western Michigan; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Perry 
and Douglas, Georgia; Laurinburg, North Carolina; and Lexington, 
Kentucky. Many ideas were presented to us and many of these ideas 
eventually were incorporated in this bill before us today.
  Crop insurance has become a vital link to the soundness and 
prosperity of American agricultural producers. It is a safety net that 
assists the producer in managing risk on the farm. It allows the 
producer, not the Government, to decide how to manage this risk, be it 
financial, market or legal risk. By no means has the program been 
perfect, and it is unrealistic to expect the same program to always 
work well in every part of the country.
  In the past, crop insurance has worked well in many regions, but in 
other areas, such as California, Florida and Maine, the program has not 
worked as well.
  During our meetings and hearings, some producers advocated complete 
elimination of the program. Some advocated elimination of the actuarial 
soundness standard. Some supported retaining the program but believed 
improvements, including increased premium subsidies, modified rating 
practices, modified APH determination, and the development of a cost-
of-production crop insurance policy were needed.
  What we did do that is very important in this bill is we provided 
higher premium support to allow more farmers to afford the purchase of 
this improved crop insurance policy. We also addressed the problem of 
yield averages to allow farmers to eliminate those bad years in their 
average so that they can actually purchase insurance to cover what they 
normally can produce.
  The improved policies also allow producers to buy income protection, 
a much needed improvement in the safety net. The committee has stated 
all along that it was on a two-track approach toward improving risk 
management. The first track was to make improvements in the Federal 
crop insurance program, and that is H.R. 2559.
  It has and will be combined with further efforts to bring about a 
full examination of our safety net and to examine the crop insurance 
program to find the best way to provide the best crop insurance and the 
best safety net for all of our farmers. I want to thank the leadership, 
who made the extra money possible so that we could be here today with 
this improved bill.
  I want to thank my staff on the subcommittee who worked so hard, and 
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the subcommittee 
ranking member (Mr. Condit), and all of those who have worked to make 
this bill what it is today. It is a good bill. It is an improved bill, 
and we ought to pass this bill resoundingly and send it to our 
colleagues in the Senate.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise first to commend the leadership of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) in bringing this bill to the 
floor today. The chairman has proven himself, in his time so far as the 
Committee on Agriculture chairman, to be a square shooter. He is also 
dealing substantively with the issues and dealing with them in a 
bipartisan way.
  I think his comments even on the floor today, his stated intention to 
hold hearings in the new year on the farm bill to assess its failings, 
shows that he will honestly follow the facts and not get tied up in 
partisan positioning; asking the questions that need to be asked, why 
is this farm bill failing so poorly?

[[Page H8981]]

  Another example of the constructive leadership of the chairman is the 
bill before us. He represents the southern plains. I represent the 
northern plains. He is a Republican. I am a Democrat. This bill 
reflects a consensus product that leaves me very, very enthused about 
extending the protection to the farmers I represent, as well as farmers 
throughout the country. I deeply appreciate the bipartisan, 
constructive leadership he has provided in bringing this bill together.
  Quickly, let me tell of the importance of crop insurance to farmers. 
Family farming involves the exposure of a significant amount of 
capital, literally hundred of thousands of dollars each year; and yet 
there are risks the farmers cannot control, the risk of production loss 
and the risk of price collapse. We are passing a disaster bill now, 
responding in part to the fact that we do not have a farm program 
responding to price collapse. We need to build that in as part of the 
farm program in the future.
  This crop insurance, however, responds to the other risk, production 
loss, and it does so very meaningfully in three important ways.
  First, it makes adequate coverage levels affordable to family 
farmers. Right now, quite frankly, the premiums to put in place the 
coverage levels that begin to protect the financial investment are 
simply out of reach for America's family farmers. This makes those 
premiums more affordable and therefore will greatly help people get the 
coverage that they depend upon.
  Secondly, it helps farmers plagued with several years of losses 
continue to have a production history that produces adequate coverage 
and adequate coverage opportunity. Right now, through no fault of the 
farmer, if they have a loss, another loss the next year, another loss 
the next year, pretty soon no matter what they do, no matter how much 
they want to pay, they cannot get adequate coverage back in place 
anymore. This deals with that problem.
  Thirdly, right now we essentially do not provide adequate coverage at 
all for farmers that haul their grain to the elevator, and only at the 
elevator realize a very severe price discount due to quality problems 
in the grain. That is an uncovered exposure under the present system. 
This affords the opportunity to the Risk Management Agency to address 
that problem.
  This bill goes an awful long way to making permanent changes in crop 
insurance that will help farmers deal with the risk-of-production loss. 
It is an excellent starting point to the full breadth of action 
required by this Congress to rural America, the next step being, of 
course, a permanent provision for protecting farmers when prices 
collapse.
  I thank the chairman and urge support of this legislation.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), the vice chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Combest) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of H.R. 2559, and I too want to 
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for their leadership on this 
issue and their hard work on the bill and certainly a word of 
appreciation to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Ewing), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Condit), for their leadership in bringing the bill to the point that we 
have reached here today.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2559 strengthens the farm safety net by making 
crop insurance more accessible and certainly more affordable for our 
producers. Most importantly, the bill will help reduce the need for 
unbudgeted ad hoc disaster assistance just as we are preparing to 
provide that assistance again this year.

                              {time}  1200

  I believe the livestock coverage pilot program included in the bill 
will prove to be very, very beneficial. It will allow livestock 
producers to participate in the Federal insurance program for the first 
time to help them better manage low market prices.
  The bill also rewards producers who have above average production and 
insurance history, that is very, very positive, by authorizing some 
premium discounts for exceptional performance in the program.
  Mr. Chairman, our American farmers and ranchers borrow more money 
each and every year than most of us borrow in a lifetime just to plant 
a crop so that the world can eat. Borrowing that kind of money is an 
incredible gamble because markets may or may not provide farmers enough 
to pay back their loans or to cover the cost of their production. Worse 
yet, adverse weather, of course, can rob them of their crop and their 
income completely.
  I think it is absolutely essential that we pass H.R. 2559 as our 
farmers prepare for the upcoming crop year. I urge my colleagues to 
join me and support this timely and very, very important measure.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) for his leadership on this issue and bringing this about 
and working with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) and the 
committee as we move this legislation forward.
  Mr. Chairman, this is going to provide the new national safety net. 
We have seen that, with the disasters in both drought and other 
circumstances, that our farmers need additional assistance in order to 
provide for a safety net.
  I have enjoyed working with the committee to make sure that it 
includes policies which will be a benefit to, not only Maine, but to 
Northeast, in particular the development of new policies and the 
expansion of the specialty crops and the special recognition of 
expanding to cover more of those specialty crops like potatoes.
  I want to again urge the chairman and would like to be able to work 
with the chairman and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the 
ranking member, as we look to try to reduce to smaller units and rate 
increases that are no greater than any other class to make sure that we 
can further incorporate more and more of the farmers, especially in 
Maine and in the Northeast, as we try to get more of them engaged on a 
national scale in terms of this new national safety net.
  I would like to be able to work with the chairman and the ranking 
member in conference as we work on this particular issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for 
comments.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the productive 
efforts of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) throughout this 
process. Part of what he is suggesting is, a part of the whole concept 
behind this, is to look at new types of programs that can be available 
for coverage that does not exist today, look at the growing habits and 
conditions that farmers may have, and to encourage the associations 
that represent the people who grow those commodities to be involved in 
the product so that it is a very workable product.
  We will be happy to work with the gentleman in any way that I might 
through the conference to assure that his concerns and interests are 
taken care of.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I, too, look forward to working with the 
gentleman from Maine. I appreciate him bringing it to the attention of 
the full body, bringing this, not necessarily unique problem, but it is 
one which is clearly made possible in the legislation that we consider 
today, these concerns to be met.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Baldacci) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and seeing that, 
in the final conference report, that this be achieved.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Vice Chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget and a member of the House Committee on 
Agriculture and who I would say more than any other Member is 
responsible for the additional money that was in the budget for crop 
insurance.

[[Page H8982]]

  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, like my other 
colleagues, how much I appreciate the strong leadership, both to the 
chairman of the committee and also to the ranking member. The gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
have come together in a strong bipartisan way to ensure that farmers in 
America have been treated fairly. Also to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Ewing), my subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Condit), the ranking member. Again, we have shown how 
things in this body ought to work in a bipartisan way.
  Agriculture is the backbone of the economy of this country. It always 
has been and, frankly, always will be. But today agriculture all across 
the United States is in trouble. We are taking some short-term measures 
to shore up the current deficit in prices for commodities across the 
country, and that is very well needed.
  But even though we have heard a lot of fingerpointing in the last 4 
years now, almost since we passed the 1996 farm bill, as to what the 
cause of the problems are in agriculture country today, when we passed 
the 1996 farm bill, there were several legs to the table that were 
going to be necessary to require agriculture country to stabilize for 
years to come.
  One of those legs was regulatory relief. Frankly, in this House, we 
passed any number of regulatory relief measures that would give our 
farmers more flexibility to operate their farms and improve their 
bottom line. Some of those measures have been enacted into law and are 
in the process now of being tweaked to benefit our farmers. Some of 
them never got beyond passage in this House.
  Another leg was providing tax relief to the American farmer. We 
passed a real tax relief package not too long ago that would have been 
a huge benefit to the American farmer and has recently been vetoed.
  Another leg to that table is crop insurance. The one thing that I 
think we agree on across agriculture country in the United States is 
that the current crop insurance program we have in place does not work 
and does not provide any sort of safety net to our farmers.
  We did have hearings down in my district and all across the country. 
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) was gracious enough to come 
down and visit with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and myself. 
The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) came down and heard the 
interest of my farmers.
  There were a couple of things in particular that we heard. One was we 
need flexibility. We need flexibility and a crop insurance program that 
will provide for a cost to production policy that will ensure our 
financial benefactors to be able to know that we will get some sort of 
return in disastrous years. That flexibility is provided in this bill.
  A second thing that he heard, that both these gentleman heard from 
our farmers, was that, in our part of the country, we have a real 
distinction between irrigated and nonirrigated crops. We need crop 
insurance policies that will allow the insurance of irrigated crops 
versus nonirrigated crops so that our farmers who are making good, 
rational business decisions to invest in irrigation will be able to 
provide the risk management tool that they need to cover those 
irrigated versus nonirrigated crops.
  Those are some of the major issues that are covered here. It is a 
good bill. I, again, thank our leadership and urge the passage of this 
bill.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
me the time. I thank him for his leadership.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), chairman 
of the Committee on Agriculture, for his leadership in bringing this 
bill to the floor and his attitude and his openness to be inclusive of 
a variety of ideas.
  I think this is a terrific step forward, and I think it is the right 
way to go. I do not think it is the complete step, however. I think it 
is a process that will allow us to get to a desired place where most 
farmers will be better protected.
  We certainly know that the safety net that this bill speaks to will 
enable a lot of farmers to have the assurance that the risks that they 
need to manage, it will be greatly enhanced.
  I am still hopeful that the whole issue that the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) is talking about, income, can be looked at. I think that 
is something that the chairman has at least been open to discuss.
  I want to raise the issue of the whole safety net for smaller 
farmers. In my neck of the woods, smaller farmers have complained that 
they have not had the opportunity to have the same recovery from the 
risk management in crop insurance. This, I think, begins to open that 
process.
  At least I want to have that intention when I vote for it, that it 
does not inherently put into place to enable the larger farmer over the 
smaller farmer; that, structurally, we are trying to make it open that 
all farmers have equal access in the base of their production and their 
year rather than to have it skewed to the larger farmer.
  Finally, I would say that this risk management will go a long ways 
because, in many of my areas, Hurricane Floyd has added to that whole 
risk, and we certainly need it.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a very hard working member of the committee.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2559. I, too, 
want to congratulate the leadership and the staff for all the work that 
went into this bill.
  It does not go as far as I would like to see us go in terms of the 
area of revenue protection. H.R. 2559 marks a major step toward the 
kind of revenue protection program that I believe will be necessary to 
provide our farmers with a shock absorber, a shock absorber against the 
vagaries of weather and volatile commodity prices.
  The past couple of years demonstrate now more than ever that our 
farmers need more affordable protection in times of declining prices 
and natural disasters. Without these changes, we are likely to face the 
prospect of even more costly and more unbudgeted ad hoc annual disaster 
programs.
  Putting aside the emergency assistance package that is being 
prepared, the RMA estimates that $1.8 billion will be paid this year to 
farmers who have suffered major crop losses. Even with lower commodity 
prices, these payments, I am told, parallel a 17 percent jump in crop 
insurance protection for farmers, from $28 billion in 1998 to a 
projected $33 billion in 1999.
  Let us not lose sight of the fact that we can save precious dollars 
tomorrow by a smart investment today. I urge my colleagues to support 
these much-needed reforms. Support the Agriculture Risk Protection Act.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the 
ranking member, for their leadership on this issue.
  I rise today in support of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act. This 
bill makes the Federal crop insurance program a better risk management 
tool for America's farmers.
  Farmers will pay less for crop insurance at every level as a result 
of this bill. By offering increased premium subsidies, this bill 
encourages farmers to purchase crop insurance and protect themselves 
against low yields and weather disasters.
  Crop insurance should be like automobile insurance. If one gets a 
discount on automobile insurance for having a good driving record, one 
should get a discount on crop insurance for having a good production 
history. This bill does this by establishing premium discounts for 
producers who have a good production history.
  This legislation also imposes different penalties on those who 
defraud the program. Anyone who intentionally submits false information 
will be disqualified from all farm programs for up to 5 years. This is 
an excellent step towards making sure a good crop insurance program is 
available for honest farmers.

[[Page H8983]]

  This legislation improves the way a farmer's actual production 
history is calculated to allow producers sufficient yields to provide 
adequate coverage.
  It enhances Farm Services Agency's roll in record keeping, yield 
estimates, and product approval by forming a new record-keeping system 
through cooperation between the Farmer Service Administration State 
committees and the Federal Commodity Insurance Corporation.
  This system will provide more accurate information for the crop 
insurance program. This legislation improves oversight of companies and 
the Risk Management Agency by establishing an office to oversee policy 
development and broadens membership and oversight authority of the 
board of directors of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
  It increases coverage for fruits and vegetables by expanding and 
improving NAP program to benefit fruit and vegetable farmers.
  The bill allows producers who are prevented from planting a crop to 
receive the indemnity on that crop and still make use of the land by 
preventing an uninsured crop. This provision is especially important 
for cotton producers across the country who are often prevented from 
getting their crop in the ground.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for a 
better crop insurance program and pass the Agriculture Risk Protection 
Act.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, may I have an accounting of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has 11\1/2\ 
minutes and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 15\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a very hard-working member of the committee.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very 
important bill and to congratulate the two distinguished Members from 
Texas who have worked so well together in a bipartisan way to help 
hard-hit farmers solve some very important problems.
  There are two things in the bill that I want to point out. One is an 
amendment that was adopted by the committee during consideration which 
allows for electronic availability for producers and agents to file 
electronically crop insurance paperwork.
  It is a shorter version or a revised version of a bill that I have 
been pushing to allow for electronic filing for any number of forms and 
programs within the department of USDA.

                              {time}  1215

  And I am glad this provision was included as an amendment. I think it 
is a good first step, and I hope it will allow us in the future to pass 
the entire bill that we have held hearings on in our subcommittee.
  I also will be offering an amendment, along with the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Boswell), to set up a couple of pilot projects for livestock 
producers around the country. And in particular I think it is 
interesting to note that these pilot projects are very timely, given 
the disasters that have taken place as a result of hurricanes, 
particularly in the Carolinas. I believe these pilot projects will go a 
long way to helping livestock producers.
  I appreciate the fact that the chairman has agreed to accept our 
amendment and look forward to working with him as we go to conference 
on this bill so that these important provisions can be a part of a 
final bill that passes the Senate and, hopefully, turns into a 
conference report that both the House and Senate will pass and that the 
President will sign.
  This is important legislation for hard-hit agriculture; and, again, I 
compliment both of the gentlemen from Texas for the work that they do 
on behalf of farmers all over America.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the legislation.
  This crop insurance reform proposal has been worked on now for many 
months. It represents an effort on the part of many commodity groups 
and farm organizations to come together and identify key reforms that 
are necessary in our program, ways to strengthen the program, and the 
financial support that is necessary to make this program successful and 
effective in the farming community.
  One of the problems that we continue to face is concern on behalf of 
farmers that crop insurance is a very expensive tool to manage risk, 
and that the benefits that they receive from crop insurance are not 
adequate to compensate them for the tremendous losses and risks that 
they face in their agricultural endeavors. I hope that with the 
additional infusion of cash here for the Federal crop insurance program 
that farmers will see that this is still a better value and that they 
will be able to use it and that it will provide the type of 
countercyclical government assistance that is needed for America's 
farmers to continue to compete in the global economy.
  I am particularly pleased that we are now moving in the direction of 
whole-farm revenue assurance. This bill certainly does not accomplish 
that, but it enables us to pursue pilot studies, pilot projects, and 
offer to some of the farmers that have livestock operations an 
opportunity to ensure the revenue stream with respect to their 
livestock operations and, similarly, to enable crop farmers to assure 
their revenue stream.
  This is an important distinction from the insurance program that we 
have had traditionally. Traditionally, crop insurance has been keyed to 
productivity, to yield loss. And a multi-peril crop insurance has 
meant, whether it is hail, insect infestation, drought, flooding, or 
some other cause, that they have protection against that yield loss. 
But as we see here in 1998 and 1999, the farmer faces a risk of price 
loss that is every bit as severe as the yield loss.
  When I was home in my area of Minnesota last weekend and saw the 
combines starting to roll and heard from some of the farmers that the 
yields are perhaps the best that they have ever experienced in certain 
parts of the State but that, still, they cannot break even because the 
price collapse haunts them, it reminded me even more of the importance 
of expanding the crop insurance concept to include this total revenue 
stream, to include the price risk.
  So as we move ahead with this debate and consideration of the bill, I 
urge that we continue to focus on how this can be the most effective 
tool possible for farmers.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Riley), a very valuable member of the committee.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, things are bleak in farm country these days. 
Commodity prices are at their lowest levels since the Great Depression. 
Each morning, far too many families in Alabama and across the Nation 
wake up to the haunting realization that their farm may not be around 
next year; that they may have to change their way of life.
  Mr. Chairman, there has always been weather-related disasters and 
difficult economic times in agriculture, but there is something 
different about today's economic climate. In my own State of Alabama, 
farmers are suffering through some of the toughest climate and economic 
conditions in years.
  For years, crop insurance has been the primary risk-management tool 
for farmers. But every time I go home, farmers tell me that insurance 
premiums under the current program are just too expensive and too 
complicated to make the program useful. H.R. 2559 will solve this 
problem by reducing the expensive out-of-pocket crop insurance cost to 
farmers by making across-the-board cuts in farmer-paid premiums. As a 
result, more farmers in my State and across the Nation will be able to 
participate in this program.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this bill lifts unfair 
restrictions, like the so-called ``black dirt policy,'' that prohibits 
farmers who double crop, like many of my cotton growers, from planting 
a second crop in a year when they make a prevented planting claim.
  Mr. Chairman, overall, H.R. 2559 is a good bill and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H8984]]

  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time to speak on this matter. It is very important. 
And I want to thank also our chairman, as others have, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Combest) for his keen interest in trying to provide a 
better safety net for our producers.
  Farmers need the insurance. But if they cannot afford it, they are 
not going to use it. And they have proven that to us. So this will be a 
big step, an incentive, to get this going. And again I want to thank 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for taking this on.
  As has been said several times, and I will not spend a lot of time 
repeating it, but the lowest commodity prices in years and years and 
years are facing farmers today.
  I am also looking forward, and I appreciate again the statement of 
the chairman in committee that the supplemental income language that 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has prepared will be discussed 
at a future time. So I thank him for that. I am looking forward to 
that. I think that is a step forward in the right direction.
  So I am very enthusiastic to support this bill today, and I look 
forward to the discussions we will have starting in the new year with 
the hearings that we are going to have on the farm bill. I think this 
is very important, and the farmers across this land are expecting this 
and looking forward to it.
  So I rise in strong support of what we are doing here today and thank 
again the chairman and the ranking member for their good work.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham), a former member of our committee and still-
hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate the 
Committee on Agriculture, which, as the chairman mentioned, I was a 
former member of. But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), have really 
done an outstanding job on this bill, and also the subcommittee of 
jurisdiction I think has done an outstanding job.
  I just wanted to make a couple of comments. We have had a pilot 
project, or pilot plan, in Iowa for the past several years, using the 
revenue assurance model. And the farmers that have used the program 
have found it extremely beneficial in managing their risk.
  And when we talk about weather-related problems, such as an 
individual farm hail storm, a lot of times emergency bills do not cover 
an isolated area that has either some small flooding or hail storms. 
This allows the individual farmer to manage his risk. And, also, with 
the revenue assurance, it allows that individual to manage the price 
risk.
  As we all know, we are going through right now an emergency 
supplemental for agriculture, which is very much needed, but in the 
long run we have to find ways for farmers to manage their risk, both 
price and production risk. This is what this bill is all about. It is 
extraordinarily positive.
  There are problems in areas where they have had disasters over a 
number of years that they have not been able to purchase insurance. It 
has been too expensive to justify purchasing the insurance. And I 
believe this bill will go a long ways towards solving those problems, 
making revenue assurance available for all producers throughout this 
Nation.
  It is an extremely positive step forward, and I just want to 
compliment everyone on the committee for their great work.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to speak 
out of order.)


International Association of Firefighters Sponsoring Visit of Children 
                          who are Burn Victims

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for 
yielding and for indulging.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to announce to my colleagues that at present, in 
the basement of the Rayburn Building, we have 45 young children from 
all over the country who are the victims of terrible tragedies in their 
homes who have been burned.
  These youngsters were brought here by the International Association 
of Firefighters. It is part of a week-long camp to help them get 
reoriented into their lives. I would ask Members, if they have some 
time, to stop by B369 in the Rayburn Building to say hello to these 
children and to see the tragic consequences of what fire does to young 
people, but also to see the spirit of these young people as they press 
forward, working with the IAFF to rebuild their lives.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and, in closing, I would only thank my colleague and friend and 
neighbor, the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm), for his bipartisan work and support.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) is the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research, and Specialty Crops, and 
even though he has left the floor, a special thanks to him; and to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the subcommittee chairman, who not 
only has spent a great deal of time and a lot of hard work in a lot of 
hearings, and probably understands crop insurance as well as anyone. I 
thank him for his efforts in moving this bill forward. He did a great 
job, and I certainly could not give him over-acclaim. He did a very 
good job on the bill, and I thank him very much.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
legislation.
  The continuing dry weather in Tennessee has left our farmers facing 
devastating crop losses for the second year in a row. The harsh 
conditions have dried up thousands of acres of crops and left Tennessee 
farmers with low commodity prices and unstable market conditions for 
those crops which have survived the harsh drought conditions.
  Rainfall has been very sparse throughout west Tennessee. National 
Weather Service statistics show that Jackson, Tennessee, received less 
than 3 inches of rain for July, which is indicative for the rest of the 
region. Memphis rainfall totaled less than 4 inches for 3 months in a 
row so far this summer. The entire west Tennessee region is more than 7 
inches below the normal precipitation levels this year.
  Because of the lack of significant rainfall, conditions of specific 
crops have suffered dramatically over the past several months. Cotton 
farmers, whose crops are mostly located in southwest Tennessee in the 
Fayette County area, reported just last month that more than 34 percent 
of their crops are in poor to very poor condition. Soybean farmers, who 
make up the largest percentage of farmers in Tennessee, reported last 
month that 49 percent of their crops are in poor to very poor 
condition.
  Livestock farmers are also being forced to use their own winter feed 
reserves because of the crop devastation around the State. In fact, 
some of the livestock producers in Montgomery County have begun to sell 
off a portion of their herd because of the high price for feed and the 
unstable conditions in the area.
  There can be no better time for crop insurance reform than now. The 
farming industry, which is solely dependent on the weather, has 
producers across the country contacting their Representatives asking 
for a more responsive crop insurance program. Their need is to have 
availability to insurance plans or policies for both crop and livestock 
risk management.
  Farmers who have suffered year after year in either drought or flood 
conditions are having a difficult time obtaining insurance at an 
affordable rate. Under this bill, the Federal Government provides 
better assistance for buying coverage for farmers, who have been 
plagued by multiple disasters each year. It also provides the 
development of pilot programs for livestock risk management plans.
  The bill also tightens the accountability of the Federal crop 
insurance program. It requires  the Secretary of Agriculture to work 
with the Farm Service Agency to monitor and audit the Federal crop 
insurance program in the field. There are also increased sanctions for 
reporting false information and new requirements for record keeping and 
reporting of crop acreage, acreage yields and production.

  Tennessee's 95 counties were declared a Federal disaster area on 
September 10th. This was welcome news for our farmers who have been 
through the worst of conditions over the past several years, and whose 
crops are dwindling to dust. But so far, the assistance has been slow. 
Many of our farmers have not received any information concerning the 
disaster funds available and are left wondering when the assistance 
will come and will it be on time to help with the financial losses 
they're suffering.

[[Page H8985]]

  Comprehensive crop insurance reform is desperately needed for our 
farmers across the country. Future disasters will happen, and when they 
do, our farmers will need to have a plan they can rely on that offers 
accountability, premium assistance and affordable coverage to keep 
their industry going.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2559, The 
Agricultural Risk Protection Act. I would like to take this opportunity 
to commend the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee 
and my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Ewing for their efforts in developing 
this important bill.
  H.R. 2559 serves the interests of farmers and ranchers by providing 
more choices and the tools needed to manage the risk inherent in 
farming. This is especially important to my constituents in the central 
valley of California, who rely on little Federal support or programs. 
Instead, these producers rely on other risk management tools, such as 
diversified farming, irrigation, and responding to market signals to 
make their decisions. However, even these practices may not be enough 
for producers to protect themselves from factors beyond their control. 
New challenges are being faced in light of the growing global 
marketplace and the increasing regulatory and social pressures to 
reduce farming inputs.
  I would like to point out there are currently over 300 specialty crop 
producers who do not have the choice to purchase insurance products--
there are simply none available. Even worse, current specialty crop 
insurance policies are either unusable or too costly because of high 
input and sales value of specialty crops. While ad hoc disaster relief 
seems inevitable this year to assist U.S. Agriculture, Congress cannot 
continue to use taxpayer money and break budgetary caps. At the same 
time, Congress cannot turn its back on those producers who are not 
eligible for Federal crop insurance and have had to rely on other forms 
of disaster relief protection.
  Not only is there a need to develop more risk management tools, 
farmers need to be aware which financial, marketing, and production 
tools are available, both on and off the farm. I believe that H.R. 2559 
provides the necessary resources and direction. This bill makes more 
management options available to underserved commodities in the 
following ways: increasing premium subsidies, increasing research and 
education funds, expedited product approval, expanded pilot program 
authority, producer and industry-wide input on policies, allowing 
farmers to join together through their cooperatives and associations to 
obtain crop insurance.
  In these ways, the Risk Management Agency along with public and 
private inputs can better address the unique challenges associated with 
the planting, growing, and harvesting of specialty crops.
  I thank Chairman Combest and his staff for all of their efforts to 
bring this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to vote for its 
passage.
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the chairman and 
the ranking minority member of the full committee, Mr. Combest and Mr. 
Stenholm, and the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Ewing and Mr. Condit, for their leadership in crop 
insurance reform this year. Having served on the subcommittee of 
jurisdiction, I have been vested in this crop insurance reform effort 
for many months. I am pleased to say that I rise in support of H.R. 
2559 and that it addresses most of the needs of my constituents in 
south Louisiana. Moreover, it is a tremendous improvement from the 
current program.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, many of my farmers are rice producers. 
Most rice producers have traditionally not participated in the Federal 
crop insurance program because premiums have been viewed as too 
expensive relative to the minimal coverage the program offers. For 
example, during the 1998 crop year only 43 percent of the 3 million 
rice acres planted was covered by catastrophic (CAT) policies while 
another 20 percent of the acreage was covered by buy-up policies. The 
20 percent level of participation in the buy-up option for rice is 
significantly lower than the 47 percent for wheat, 44 percent for corn 
and cotton and 37 percent for soybeans during the 1998 crop year. In 
general, the low level of participation by U.S. rice farmers has 
occurred because: (1) coverage for CAT policies is low and premiums for 
buy-up policies are too high given the level of coverage; (2) serious 
problems exist with the actuarial data used to calculate both premiums 
and coverage, and (3) rice producers, due to a relative low level of 
yield variability, want price/revenue protection versus traditional 
yield insurance.
  With the risk management challenges facing the rice farmer listed 
above, H.R. 2559 goes a long way toward addressing them. First and 
foremost, this crop insurance reform bill does not replace the current 
farm program. With respect to addressing the low level of participation 
in the program, H.R. 2559 makes CAT or similar policies more 
attractive. Though the structure of the current CAT program does not 
change in H.R. 2559, a Group Risk Plan (GRP) policy may provide a 
higher yield and price protection on a uniform national basis, which a 
producer can choose as an alternative to CAT. The actuarial soundness 
of the program is addressed in H.R. 2559 by requiring the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation to adjust rates by the 2000 crop year if they are 
found to be excessive. In addition, rice producers will benefit from 
H.R. 2559 because revenue and price coverage is strengthened in this 
bill. Policies protecting production and/or revenue would receive an 
equal percentage of assistance on total premiums as MPCI policies. 
Finally, the FCIC Board of Directors is expanded to include additional 
producer participation that reflects different crop growing regions.

  With all this in mind, I believe H.R. 2559 is a good first step 
toward addressing the problems in farm country. However, Mr. Chairman, 
this bill does not solve the larger problems associated with the lack 
of a safety net for America's farmers, but is an important component of 
a comprehensive solution. There are many farmers in my district that 
can not secure financing for next year's crop because we have yet to 
address the farm crisis. In fact, I've heard from just as many 
community bankers as I have farmers about this crisis. There are many 
farmers who will not benefit from the advancements made in H.R. 2559 
because they will not be farming next year unless this Congress acts 
soon to address the ongoing crisis. Let us pass H.R. 2559 and let us 
immediately address the Agriculture appropriations bill that includes 
emergency disaster assistance from our country's farmers.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2559, 
the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 1999.
  Mr. Chairman, American agriculture is in a serious situation right 
now. While the rest of the economy is booming, American farmers and 
ranchers are hurting and asking for our help. Commodity prices are at 
record lows, export markets are weak, and no relief is expected any 
time soon. This crop insurance bill helps protect farmers against low 
commodity prices and farm income by making insurance levels more 
affordable for crop losses, declining prices and total farm revenue 
loss. Under the current crop insurance program, my farmers in Michigan 
have very little incentive to purchase any level of insurance beyond 
the CAT coverage. It doesn't pay off for them to do so. In Michigan, 
like a lot of areas in the United States, we get hit by a disaster 
about every 10 years. They don't need sunshine insurance. One of my 
amendments adopted in the Agriculture Committee helps correct this 
problem. This provision adjusts the premium farmers pay by area 
according to frequency of disaster. Another important provision this 
bill contains regards revenue coverage. Plans will be developed 
designed to enable producers to take maximum advantage of fluctuations 
in market prices which will maximize revenue from the sale of a crop.
  H.R. 2559 increases premium assistance to farmers at every coverage 
level so they can protect more of what they produce. This is why I am a 
cosponsor of this bill. Farmers will have across-the-board premium 
cuts. The little money farmers have in their pockets will stay there 
and not be spent on overpriced premiums. I urge all my colleagues to 
join with me in supporting H.R. 2559.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in 
House Report 106-346, shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule by title, and each title 
shall be considered read.
  No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed 
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Amendments printed 
in the Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be 
printed or his designee, shall be considered read, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.

[[Page H8986]]

  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       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 
     ``Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

               TITLE I--STRENGTHENING THE FARM SAFETY NET

Sec. 101. Premium schedule for additional coverage.
Sec. 102. Premium schedule for other plans of insurance.
Sec. 103. Adjustment in actual production history to establish 
              insurable yields.
Sec. 104. Review and adjustment in rating methodologies.
Sec. 105. Conduct of pilot programs, including livestock.
Sec. 106. Cost of production as a price election.
Sec. 107. Premium discounts for good performance.
Sec. 108. Options for catastrophic risk protection.
Sec. 109. Authority for nonprofit associations to pay fees on behalf of 
              producers.
Sec. 110. Elections regarding prevented planting coverage.
Sec. 111. Limitations under noninsured crop disaster assistance 
              program.
Sec. 112. Quality grade loss adjustment.
Sec. 113. Application of amendments.

                 TITLE II--IMPROVING PROGRAM INTEGRITY

Sec. 201. Limitation on double insurance.
Sec. 202. Improving program compliance and integrity.
Sec. 203. Sanctions for false information.
Sec. 204. Protection of confidential information.
Sec. 205. Records and reporting.
Sec. 206. Compliance with State licensing requirements.

                       TITLE III--ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 301. Board of Directors of Corporation.
Sec. 302. Promotion of submission of policies and related materials.
Sec. 303. Research and development, including contracts regarding 
              underserved commodities.
Sec. 304. Funding for reimbursement and research and development.
Sec. 305. Board consideration of submitted policies and materials.
Sec. 306. Contracting for rating of plans of insurance.
Sec. 307. Electronic availability of crop insurance information.
Sec. 308. Fees for use of new policies and plans of insurance.
Sec. 309. Clarification of producer requirement to follow good farming 
              practices.
Sec. 310. Reimbursements and negotiation of standard reinsurance 
              agreement.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
       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 
     ``Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

               TITLE I--STRENGTHENING THE FARM SAFETY NET

Sec. 101. Premium schedule for additional coverage.
Sec. 102. Premium schedule for other plans of insurance.
Sec. 103. Adjustment in actual production history to establish 
              insurable yields.
Sec. 104. Review and adjustment in rating methodologies.
Sec. 105. Conduct of pilot programs, including livestock.
Sec. 106. Cost of production as a price election.
Sec. 107. Premium discounts for good performance.
Sec. 108. Options for catastrophic risk protection.
Sec. 109. Authority for nonprofit associations to pay fees on behalf of 
              producers.
Sec. 110. Elections regarding prevented planting coverage.
Sec. 111. Limitations under noninsured crop disaster assistance 
              program.
Sec. 112. Quality grade loss adjustment.
Sec. 113. Application of amendments.

                 TITLE II--IMPROVING PROGRAM INTEGRITY

Sec. 201. Limitation on double insurance.
Sec. 202. Improving program compliance and integrity.
Sec. 203. Sanctions for false information.
Sec. 204. Protection of confidential information.
Sec. 205. Records and reporting.
Sec. 206. Compliance with State licensing requirements.

                       TITLE III--ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 301. Board of Directors of Corporation.
Sec. 302. Promotion of submission of policies and related materials.
Sec. 303. Research and development, including contracts regarding 
              underserved commodities.
Sec. 304. Funding for reimbursement and research and development.
Sec. 305. Board consideration of submitted policies and materials.
Sec. 306. Contracting for rating of plans of insurance.
Sec. 307. Electronic availability of crop insurance information.
Sec. 308. Fees for use of new policies and plans of insurance.
Sec. 309. Clarification of producer requirement to follow good farming 
              practices.
Sec. 310. Reimbursements and negotiation of standard reinsurance 
              agreement.

               TITLE I--STRENGTHENING THE FARM SAFETY NET

     SEC. 101. PREMIUM SCHEDULE FOR ADDITIONAL COVERAGE.

       (a) Premium Amounts.--Section 508(d)(2) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(d)(2)) is amended by striking 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) In the case of additional coverage equal to or 
     greater than 50 percent of the recorded or appraised average 
     yield indemnified at not greater than 100 percent of the 
     expected market price, or an equivalent coverage, the amount 
     of the premium shall--
       ``(i) be sufficient to cover anticipated losses and a 
     reasonable reserve; and
       ``(ii) include an amount for operating and administrative 
     expenses, as determined by the Corporation, on an industry-
     wide basis as a percentage of the amount of the premium used 
     to define loss ratio.''.
       (b) Payment Schedule.--Section 508(e)(2) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e)(2)) is amended by 
     striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraphs:
       ``(B) In the case of additional coverage equal to or 
     greater than 50 percent, but less than 55 percent, of the 
     recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not 
     greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or an 
     equivalent coverage, the amount shall be equal to the sum 
     of--
       ``(i) 67 percent of the amount of the premium established 
     under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level 
     selected; and
       ``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) 
     for the coverage level selected to cover operating and 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(C) In the case of additional coverage equal to or 
     greater than 55 percent, but less than 65 percent, of the 
     recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not 
     greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or an 
     equivalent coverage, the amount shall be equal to the sum 
     of--
       ``(i) 64 percent of the amount of the premium established 
     under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level 
     selected; and
       ``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) 
     for the coverage level selected to cover operating and 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(D) In the case of additional coverage equal to or 
     greater than 65 percent, but less than 75 percent, of the 
     recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not 
     greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or an 
     equivalent coverage, the amount shall be equal to the sum 
     of--
       ``(i) 59 percent of the amount of the premium established 
     under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level 
     selected; and
       ``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) 
     for the coverage level selected to cover operating and 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(E) In the case of additional coverage equal to or 
     greater than 75 percent, but less than 80 percent, of the 
     recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not 
     greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or an 
     equivalent coverage, the amount shall be equal to the sum 
     of--
       ``(i) 54 percent of the amount of the premium established 
     under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level 
     selected; and
       ``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) 
     for the coverage level selected to cover operating and 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(F) In the case of additional coverage equal to or 
     greater than 80 percent, but less than 85 percent, of the 
     recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not 
     greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or an 
     equivalent coverage, the amount shall be equal to the sum 
     of--
       ``(i) 40.6 percent of the amount of the premium established 
     under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level 
     selected; and
       ``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) 
     for the coverage level selected to cover operating and 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(G) Subject to subsection (c)(4), in the case of 
     additional coverage equal to or greater than 85 percent of 
     the recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not 
     greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or an 
     equivalent coverage, the amount shall be equal to the sum 
     of--
       ``(i) 30.6 percent of the amount of the premium established 
     under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level 
     selected; and
       ``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) 
     for the coverage level selected to cover operating and 
     administrative expenses.''.
       (c) Premium Payment Disclosure.--Section 508(e) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Premium payment disclosure.--Each policy or plan of 
     insurance under this title shall prominently indicate the 
     dollar amount of the portion of the premium paid by the 
     Corporation under this subsection or subsection (h)(2).''.

     SEC. 102. PREMIUM SCHEDULE FOR OTHER PLANS OF INSURANCE.

       Section 508(h)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(h)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``A policy'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) Preparation.--A policy'';
       (2) by striking the second sentence; and

[[Page H8987]]

       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Premium schedule.--In the case of a policy offered 
     under this subsection (except paragraph (10)) or subsection 
     (m)(4), the Corporation shall pay a portion of the premium of 
     the policy that shall be equal to--
       ``(i) the percentage, specified in subsection (e) for a 
     similar level of coverage, of the total amount of the premium 
     used to define loss ratio; and
       ``(ii) the dollar amount of the administrative and 
     operating expenses that would be paid by the Corporation 
     under subsection (e) for a similar level of coverage.''.

     SEC. 103. ADJUSTMENT IN ACTUAL PRODUCTION HISTORY TO 
                   ESTABLISH INSURABLE YIELDS.

       (a) Use of Percentage of Transitional Yield.--Section 
     508(g) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(g)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Adjustment in actual production history to establish 
     insurable yields.--
       ``(A) Application.--This paragraph shall apply whenever the 
     Corporation uses the actual production history of the 
     producer to establish insurable yields for an agricultural 
     commodity for the 2001 and subsequent crop years.
       ``(B) Election to use percentage of transitional yield.--
     If, for one or more of the crop years used to establish the 
     producer's actual production history of an agricultural 
     commodity, the producer's recorded or appraised yield of the 
     commodity was less than 60 percent of the applicable 
     transitional yield, as determined by the Corporation, the 
     Corporation shall, at the election of the producer--
       ``(i) exclude any of such recorded or appraised yield; and
       ``(ii) replace each excluded yield with a yield equal to 60 
     percent of the applicable transitional yield.''.
       (b) APH Adjustment To Reflect Participation in Major Pest 
     Control Efforts.--Section 508(g) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(g)) is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (4), as added by subsection (a), the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Adjustment to reflect increased yields from 
     successful pest control efforts.--
       ``(A) Situations justifying adjustment.--The Corporation 
     shall develop a methodology for adjusting the actual 
     production history of a producer when each of the following 
     apply:
       ``(i) The producer's farm is located in an area where 
     systematic, area-wide efforts have been undertaken using 
     certain operations or measures, or the producer's farm is a 
     location at which certain operations or measures have been 
     undertaken, to detect, eradicate, suppress, or control, or at 
     least to prevent or retard the spread of, a plant disease or 
     plant pest, including a plant pest covered by the definition 
     in section 102 of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act 
     of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 147a).
       ``(ii) The presence of the plant disease or plant pest has 
     been found to adversely affect the yield of the agricultural 
     commodity for which the producer is applying for insurance.
       ``(iii) The efforts described in clause (i) have been 
     effective.
       ``(B) Adjustment amount.--The amount by which the 
     Corporation adjusts the actual production history of a 
     producer of an agricultural commodity shall reflect the 
     degree to which the success of the systematic, area-wide 
     efforts described in paragraph (1)(A), on average, increases 
     the yield of the commodity on the producer's farm, as 
     determined by the Corporation.''.

     SEC. 104. REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT IN RATING METHODOLOGIES.

       Section 508(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Review and adjustment of rates.--
       ``(A) Review required.--To maximize participation in the 
     Federal crop insurance program and to ensure equity for 
     producers, the Corporation shall periodically review the 
     methodologies employed for rating plans of insurance under 
     this title consistent with section 507(c)(2).
       ``(B) Premium adjustment.--The Corporation shall analyze 
     the rating and loss history of approved policies and plans of 
     insurance for agricultural commodities by area. If the 
     Corporation makes a determination that premium rates are 
     excessive for an agricultural commodity in an area relative 
     to the requirements of subsection (d)(2)(B) for that area, 
     then, in the 2000 crop year or as soon as practicable after 
     the determination is made, the Corporation shall make 
     appropriate adjustments in the premium rates for that area 
     for that agricultural commodity.''.

     SEC. 105. CONDUCT OF PILOT PROGRAMS, INCLUDING LIVESTOCK.

       (a) Repeal of Obsolete Pilot Programs.--Section 508(h) of 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)) is amended 
     by striking paragraphs (6) and (8).
       (b) General Requirements.--Section 508(h) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)) is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (7) the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) General requirements applicable to pilot programs.--
     In conducting any pilot program of insurance or reinsurance 
     authorized or required by this title, the Corporation--
       ``(A) may offer the pilot program on a regional, whole 
     State, or national basis after considering the interests of 
     affected producers and the interests of and risks to the 
     Corporation;
       ``(B) may operate the pilot program, including any 
     modifications thereof, for a period of up to 3 years; and
       ``(C) may extend the time period for the pilot program for 
     additional periods, as determined appropriate by the 
     Corporation.''.
       (c) Expedited Consideration.--Section 508(h)(4) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) 
     as clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), respectively;
       (2) by moving the text of the clauses (as so designated) 2 
     ems to the right;
       (3) by striking ``The Corporation'' in the first sentence 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(A) Guidelines required.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of the Agricultural Risk Protection 
     Act of 1999, the Corporation''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Expedited consideration of proposed pilot programs.--
     The regulations required by subparagraph (A) shall include 
     streamlined guidelines for the submission, and Board review, 
     of pilot programs that the Board determines are limited in 
     scope and duration and involve a reduced level of liability 
     to the Federal Government, and an increased level of risk to 
     approved insurance providers participating in the pilot 
     program, relative to other policies or materials submitted 
     under this subsection. The streamlined guidelines shall be 
     consistent with the guidelines established under subparagraph 
     (A), except as follows:
       ``(i) Not later than 60 days after submission of the 
     proposed pilot program, the Corporation shall provide an 
     applicant with notification of its intent to recommend 
     disapproval of the proposal to the Board.
       ``(ii) Not later than 90 days after the proposed pilot 
     program is submitted to the Board, the Board shall make a 
     determination to approve or disapprove the pilot program. Any 
     determination by the Board to disapprove the pilot program 
     shall be accompanied by a complete explanation of the reasons 
     for the Board's decision to deny approval. In the event the 
     Board fails to make a determination within the prescribed 
     time period, the pilot program submitted shall be deemed 
     approved by the Board for the initial reinsurance year 
     designated for the pilot program, except in the case where 
     the Board and the applicant agree to an extension.''.
       (d) Livestock Pilot Programs.--
       (1) Programs required.--Section 508(h) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (10) and inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Livestock pilot programs.--
       ``(A) Programs required.--The Corporation shall conduct one 
     or more pilot programs to evaluate the effectiveness of risk 
     management tools for livestock producers, including the use 
     of futures and options contracts and policies and plans of 
     insurance that provide livestock producers with reasonable 
     protection from the financial risks of price or income 
     fluctuations inherent in the production and marketing of 
     livestock, provide protection for production losses, and 
     otherwise protect the interests of livestock producers. To 
     the maximum extent practicable, the Corporation shall 
     evaluate the greatest number and variety of such programs to 
     determine which of the offered risk management tools are best 
     suited to protect livestock producers from the financial 
     risks associated with the production and marketing of 
     livestock.
       ``(B) Implementation; assistance.--The Corporation shall 
     begin conducting livestock pilot programs under this 
     paragraph during fiscal year 2001, and any policy or plan of 
     insurance offered under this paragraph may be prepared 
     without regard to the limitations contained in this title. As 
     part of such a pilot program, the Corporation may provide 
     assistance to producers to purchase futures and options 
     contracts or policies and plans of insurance offered under 
     that pilot program. However, no action may be undertaken with 
     respect to a risk under this paragraph if the Corporation 
     determines that insurance protection for livestock producers 
     against the risk is generally available from private 
     companies.
       ``(C) Location.--The Corporation shall conduct the 
     livestock pilot programs under this paragraph in a number of 
     counties that is determined by the Corporation to be adequate 
     to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the feasibility, 
     effectiveness, and demand among producers for the risk 
     management tools evaluated in the pilot programs.
       ``(D) Eligible producers; livestock.--Any producer of a 
     type of livestock covered by a pilot program under this 
     paragraph who owns or operates a farm or ranch in a county 
     selected as a location for that pilot program shall be 
     eligible to participate in that pilot program. In this 
     paragraph, the term `livestock' means cattle, sheep, swine, 
     goats, and poultry.
       ``(E) Relation to other laws.--The terms and conditions of 
     any policy or plan of insurance offered under this paragraph 
     that is reinsured by the Corporation is not subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission or considered as 
     accounts, agreements (including any transaction which is of 
     the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, an 
     `option', `privilege', `indemnity', `bid', `offer', `put', 
     `call', `advance guaranty', or `decline guaranty'), or 
     transactions involving contracts of sale of a commodity for 
     future delivery, traded or executed on a contract market for 
     the purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et 
     seq.). Nothing in this subparagraph is intended to affect the 
     jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or 
     the applicability of the Commodity Exchange Act to any 
     transaction conducted on a designated contract market (as 
     that term is used in such Act) by an approved insurance 
     provider to offset the provider's risk under a plan or policy 
     of insurance under this paragraph.
       ``(F) Limitation on expenditures.--The Corporation shall 
     conduct all livestock programs under this title so that, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, all costs associated with 
     conducting the livestock programs (other than research and

[[Page H8988]]

     development costs covered by paragraph (6) or subsection 
     (m)(4)) are not expected to exceed the following:
       ``(i) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
       ``(ii) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
       ``(iii) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
       ``(iv) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and each subsequent 
     fiscal year.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment to definition of agricultural 
     commodity.--Section 518 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1518) is amended by striking ``livestock and'' after 
     ``commodity, excluding''.
       (e) Funding of Livestock Pilot Programs.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 516(a)(2) of 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``years--'' and inserting ``years the 
     following:'';
       (B) by capitalizing the first letter of the first word of 
     each subparagraph;
       (C) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (A) 
     and inserting a period; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Costs associated with the conduct of livestock pilot 
     programs carried out under section 508(h)(10), subject to 
     subparagraph (F) of such section.''.
       (2) Use of insurance fund.--Section 516(b)(1) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516(b)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``including--'' and inserting ``including 
     the following:'';
       (B) by capitalizing the first letter of the first word of 
     each subparagraph;
       (C) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph 
     (A) and inserting a period;
       (D) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting a period; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Costs associated with the conduct of livestock pilot 
     programs carried out under section 508(h)(10), subject to 
     subparagraph (F) of such section.''.

     SEC. 106. COST OF PRODUCTION AS A PRICE ELECTION.

       Section 508(c)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(c)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Corporation shall establish a price'' 
     in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting ``For 
     purposes of this title, the Corporation shall establish or 
     approve a price'';
       (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (3) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following--
       ``(C) in the case of cost of production or similar plans of 
     insurance, shall be the projected cost of producing the 
     agricultural commodity (as determined by the Corporation).''.

     SEC. 107. PREMIUM DISCOUNTS FOR GOOD PERFORMANCE.

       Section 508(d) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Premium discounts.--
       ``(A) Performance-based discount.--The Corporation may 
     provide a performance-based premium discount for a producer 
     of an agricultural commodity who has good insurance or 
     production experience relative to other producers of that 
     agricultural commodity in the same area, as determined by the 
     Corporation.
       ``(B) Discount for reduced price for certain commodities.--
     A producer who insured wheat, barley, oats, or rye during at 
     least 2 of the 1995 through 1999 crop years may be eligible 
     to receive an additional 20 percent premium discount on the 
     producer-paid premium for any 2000 crop policy if the 
     producer demonstrates that the producer's wheat, barley, 
     oats, or rye crop was subjected to a discounted price due to 
     Scab or Vomitoxin damage, or both, during any 2 years of that 
     period. The 2000 insured crop or crops need not be wheat, 
     barley, oats, or rye to qualify for the discount under this 
     subparagraph. The 2 years of insurance and the 2 years of 
     discounted prices need not be the same.''.

     SEC. 108. OPTIONS FOR CATASTROPHIC RISK PROTECTION.

       Section 508(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Alternative catastrophic coverage.--Beginning with 
     the 2000 crop year, the Corporation shall offer producers of 
     an agricultural commodity the option of selecting either of 
     the following:
       ``(A) The catastrophic risk protection coverage available 
     under paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(B) An alternative catastrophic risk protection coverage 
     that--
       ``(i) indemnifies the producer on an area yield and loss 
     basis if such a plan of insurance is offered for the 
     agricultural commodity in the county in which the farm is 
     located;
       ``(ii) provides, on a uniform national basis, a higher 
     combination of yield and price protection than the coverage 
     available under paragraph (2)(A); and
       ``(iii) the Corporation determines is comparable to the 
     coverage available under paragraph (2)(A) for purposes of 
     subsection (e)(2)(A).''.

     SEC. 109. AUTHORITY FOR NONPROFIT ASSOCIATIONS TO PAY FEES ON 
                   BEHALF OF PRODUCERS.

       Section 508(b)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(b)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) Payment of fees on behalf of producers.--
       ``(i) Payment authorized.--Notwithstanding any other 
     subparagraph of this paragraph, a cooperative association of 
     agricultural producers or a nonprofit trade association may 
     pay to the Corporation, on behalf of a member of the 
     association who consents to be insured under such an 
     arrangement, all or a portion of the fees imposed under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) for catastrophic risk protection.
       ``(ii) Treatment of licensing fees.--A licensing fee or 
     other payment made by the insurance provider to the 
     cooperative association or trade association in connection 
     with the issuance of catastrophic risk protection or 
     additional coverage under this section to members of the 
     cooperative association or trade association shall not be 
     considered to be a rebate to the members if the members are 
     informed in advance of the fee or payment.
       ``(iii) Selection of provider; delivery.--Nothing in this 
     subparagraph shall be construed so as to limit the ability of 
     a producer to choose the licensed insurance agent or other 
     approved insurance provider from whom the member will 
     purchase a policy or plan of insurance or to refuse coverage 
     for which a payment is offered to be made under clause (i). A 
     policy or plan of insurance for which a payment is made under 
     clause (i) shall be delivered by a licensed insurance agent 
     or other approved insurance provider.
       ``(iv) Additional coverage encouraged.--Cooperatives and 
     trade associations and any approved insurance provider with 
     whom a licensing fee or other arrangement under this 
     subparagraph is made shall encourage producer members to 
     purchase appropriate levels of additional coverage in order 
     to meet the risk management needs of such member 
     producers.''.

     SEC. 110. ELECTIONS REGARDING PREVENTED PLANTING COVERAGE.

       Section 508(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(a)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (7), as 
     added by section 104, the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Prevented planting coverage.--
       ``(A) Election not to receive coverage.--
       ``(i) Election.--A producer may elect not to receive 
     coverage for prevented planting of an agricultural commodity.
       ``(ii) Reduction.--In the case of an election under clause 
     (i), the Corporation shall provide a reduction in the premium 
     payable by the producer for a plan of insurance in an amount 
     equal to the premium for the prevented planting coverage, as 
     determined by the Corporation.
       ``(B) Equal coverage.--For each agricultural commodity for 
     which prevented planting coverage is available, the 
     Corporation shall offer an equal percentage level of 
     prevented planting coverage.
       ``(C) Area conditions required for payment.--The 
     Corporation shall limit prevented planting payments to 
     producers to those situations in which producers in the area 
     in which the farm is located are generally affected by the 
     conditions that prevent an agricultural commodity from being 
     planted.
       ``(D) Substitute commodity.--
       ``(i) Authority to plant.--Subject to clause (iv), a 
     producer who has prevented planting coverage and who is 
     eligible to receive an indemnity under such coverage may 
     plant an agricultural commodity, other than the commodity 
     covered by the prevented planting coverage, on the acreage 
     originally prevented from being planted.
       ``(ii) Nonavailability of insurance.--A substitute 
     agricultural commodity planted as authorized by clause (i) 
     for harvest in the same crop year shall not be eligible for 
     coverage under a policy or plan of insurance under this title 
     or for noninsured crop disaster assistance under section 196 
     of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (7 U.S.C. 7333). For purposes of subsection (b)(7) only, the 
     substitute commodity shall be deemed to have at least 
     catastrophic risk protection so as to satisfy the 
     requirements of that subsection.
       ``(iii) Effect on actual production history.--If a producer 
     plants a substitute agricultural commodity as authorized by 
     clause (i) for a crop year, the Corporation shall assign the 
     producer a recorded yield, for that crop year for the 
     commodity that was prevented from being planting, equal to 60 
     percent of the producer's actual production history for such 
     commodity for purposes of determining the producer's actual 
     production history for subsequent crop years.
       ``(iv) Effect on prevented planting payment.--If a producer 
     plants a substitute agricultural commodity as authorized by 
     clause (i) before the latest planting date established by the 
     Corporation for the agricultural commodity prevented from 
     being planted, the Corporation shall not make a prevented 
     planting payment with regard to the commodity prevented from 
     being planted.''.

     SEC. 111. LIMITATIONS UNDER NONINSURED CROP DISASTER 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (b) Limitation.--Section 196(i) of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333(i)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``gross revenues'' in the subparagraph 
     heading and inserting ``adjusted gross income''; and
       (B) by striking ``gross revenue'' and ``gross revenues'' 
     each place they appear and inserting ``adjusted gross 
     income''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Limitation.--A person who has qualifying adjusted 
     gross income in excess of $2,000,000 during the taxable year 
     shall not be eligible to receive any noninsured crop disaster 
     assistance payment under this section.''.

     SEC. 112. QUALITY GRADE LOSS ADJUSTMENT.

       Section 508(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(a)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (8), as 
     added by section 110, the following new paragraph:

[[Page H8989]]

       ``(9) Quality grade loss adjustment.--Consistent with 
     subsection (m)(4), by the 2000 crop year, the Corporation 
     shall enter into a contract to analyze its quality loss 
     adjustment procedures and make such adjustments as may be 
     necessary to more accurately reflect local quality discounts 
     that are applied to agricultural commodities insured under 
     this title, taking into consideration the actuarial soundness 
     of the adjustment and the prevention of fraud, waste and 
     abuse.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I?

                              {time}  1230


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. LaHood

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. LaHood: Page 16, strike 
     lines 1 through 18, and insert the following:
       ``(A) Programs required.--
       ``(i) Number and types of programs.--The Corporation shall 
     conduct two or more pilot programs to evaluate the 
     effectiveness of risk management tools for livestock 
     producers, including the use of--
       ``(I) futures and options contracts and policies and plans 
     of insurance that provide livestock producers with reasonable 
     protection from the financial risks of price or income 
     fluctuations inherent in the production and marketing of 
     livestock, provide protection for production losses, and 
     otherwise protect the interests of livestock producers; and
       ``(II) policies and plans of insurance that, 
     notwithstanding the second sentence of subsection (a)(1), and 
     subject to the exclusions in subsection (a)(3), provide 
     livestock producers with reasonable protection from liability 
     to mitigate or compensate for adverse environmental impacts 
     from producers' operations caused by natural disasters, 
     unusual weather or climatic conditions, third-party acts, or 
     other forces or occurrences beyond the producers' control, 
     and with coverage to satisfy obligations established by law 
     for closure of producers' operations.
       ``(ii) Purpose of programs.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the Corporation shall evaluate the greatest 
     number and varieity of pilot programs described in clause (i) 
     to determine which of the offered risk management tools are 
     best suited to protect livestock producers from the financial 
     risks associated with the production and marketing of 
     livestock.

  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, along with the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Boswell), to offer an amendment to the bill that, in keeping 
with the spirit of this bill, creates an equal partnership between 
farmers, ranchers, and the Federal Government by closing a giant gap in 
the farm income safety net, a gap created by the consequences of 
unforeseen, uncontrollable, and unforgiving natural events.
  Our amendment would create, as I indicated earlier, a pilot project 
for two or three places around the country that would include livestock 
producers.
  I believe that farmers and ranchers want to do the right thing. We 
need to help them.
  My amendment allows us to live up to our commitment to our country's 
food producers by giving them the risk management tools to cope with 
disasters, weather shifts, and other natural acts beyond their control 
without fear that the cost of doing the right thing will put them out 
of business.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first off, I again want to thank my colleague and 
neighbor the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for his good work, 
and also the committee, as I have already mentioned earlier.
  I have been a long-time crop farmer and livestock farmer and, of 
course, associate with those kind of folks a lot. We have often tried 
very hard to respond to the needs of the crop farmers, as we should, 
and we should continue to do that. But we have overlooked livestock 
time and again.
  So I rise to support this amendment. It gets right to the point of 
why the business of agriculture is unlike any other business in the 
world. Most business people have some degree of control over many of 
the factors that affect their bottom line. And although weather affects 
everyone, we can make a case that farming is greatly threatened by 
natural disasters such as floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, damaging 
droughts, which severely affect a farmer's ability to stay in business.
  Now, granted that other businesses are threatened with those, too. 
But remember, a farmer's business stretches over many acres of land 
and, therefore, is a different situation. Cleanup after one of these 
natural disasters, like Floyd, and we are still trying to assess that 
impact, cost the family farmer thousands upon thousands of dollars. And 
in these times of disastrously low commodity prices, any kind of 
unforeseen cost could be a factor that finally puts the farmer out of 
business for good.
  Farmers cannot control the weather, but they certainly must deal with 
it. This amendment would simply direct USDA to use its new livestock 
insurance pilot program to give producers a useful risk management tool 
against the ill effects of Mother Nature's force and other factors 
beyond their control. And for farmers who are barely making ends meet, 
every opportunity to mitigate unforeseen costs is extremely useful.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply moves to protect livestock 
producers from costs associated with incidents beyond their control. It 
is an amendment that will help the producer better manage the risks 
associated with farming. It is a common-sense amendment and it makes 
H.R. 2559 a better bill.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the chairman 
and the ranking member.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of the author of the amendment, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), and the cosponsor of the 
amendment, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  We have discussed the amendment. There are some questions I think 
that at some point will need to be answered and resolved. I think this 
is certainly within the spirit of the direction of the bill that is 
before the House today, and I would certainly support the amendment and 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I too commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) 
and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) for offering this amendment. 
I think it does fit certainly within the spirit of the recognition 
that, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) pointed out, we have 
traditionally been in the crop insurance business.
  This bill is intended to expand into the livestock and crop. And I 
think the spirit of this, particularly in the environmental side, is 
something that we should accept today and that we should work 
expeditiously to be made part of the final legislation that ultimately 
is signed by the President.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I suggest passage of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I too want to add this morning to what has already been 
said about how important this issue is to producers across this country 
and to say that agriculture has been hit by an unprecedented set of 
issues, the lowest prices in decades, loss of foreign markets, 
unprecedented levels of concentration within the industry itself. These 
are all issues, many of them over which producers do not have control; 
and those are things that I hope as we move forward in our discussion 
in agricultural policy in Congress, that we can begin to address.
  There is tremendous room for improvement in many of these areas. I 
certainly hope that, as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, that 
I know our chairman is focused on these issues; and we intend to move 
forward and try to create an environment with respect to our producers 
to have an opportunity to make a living and to compete in the world 
marketplace.
  But we had a series of hearings on this subject. I credit the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) the chairman of our subcommittee 
for allowing us to have a hearing in Sioux Falls about 10 months ago 
where we heard from a number of producer groups across South Dakota as 
to what the problems

[[Page H8990]]

with the current crop insurance program are and how we can fix those.
  I believe that the bill that we are discussing today takes us in a 
direction that addresses those concerns and, hopefully, comes up with a 
system and a program that is more workable for the producers.
  A couple of suggestions that came out of that were that we need to 
address the premium schedule so that there is an incentive in the 
program for producers to buy up to the next level of coverage. If this 
program is going to work, we have to have that. We have addressed that 
in this bill.
  We also have had a number that were concerned about how the actual 
production history is used in a calculation of what is insurable in a 
loss, and that has been addressed, as well. There are those areas of 
the country like my own where we have seen year to year successive 
repeated losses, and the multiple-year loss issue is something that is 
addressed as well in this bill. So I believe that this is an important 
step forward.
  I want to credit the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Combest), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) and others on the other side of the aisle who have worked 
together. This really is an issue which should take the politics out of 
where we should work in a bipartisan way to try and address what is a 
very important issue to the future of this country and that is our food 
supply and how we compete in the international marketplace.
  Our producers need as many risk management tools as they can possibly 
have in order to be competitive out there, and a crop insurance program 
that is workable is certainly one of those tools and one of the things 
in their arsenal in what we hope will be an array of tools that will 
help them to better compete.
  So I, this morning, rise in support of this legislation. I hope that 
we can get action in the other body, in the Senate, as well and get the 
President to sign it into law. It is long overdue, and it is something 
I hope that will start us down the road toward returning some level of 
profitability to agriculture and also helping us insure against those 
things over which producers many times have no control, such as the 
weather.
  So this is, again, a first step. And I hope, again, that we will have 
an opportunity to address some of the other issues that are affecting 
the ag sector today.
  My State of South Dakota is going through tremendous economic stress 
on the farm, and I believe that many of the things that we are working 
on that, hopefully, will make their way through the body later on this 
year and next year will take us farther down the road towards 
addressing what are the very serious concerns about agriculture.
  Again, I want to thank the leadership of this committee and the House 
for moving this forward and taking a bill which I think is a very 
balanced, reasonable approach and will better make improvements in this 
bill to make it better, to make it a more useful tool to producers 
across this country.
  So I urge all Members in the House to vote ``yes'' when we come to 
final passage.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Upton

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Upton: Add at the end of 
     title I the following new section:

     SEC.   . CORRECTION OF ERRONEOUS PRICE ELECTION, MICHIGAN 
                   FRESH MARKET PEACHES.

       (a) Additiional Payment Based on Corrected Price.--Using 
     funds available to carry out the Federal Crop Insurance Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     make a payment to each producer of fresh market peaches in 
     Michigan who purchased a crop insurance policy for the 1999 
     fresh market peaches crop and received a payment under the 
     policy. The amount of the additional payment shall be equal 
     to the difference between--
       (1) the amount the producer would have received under the 
     policy had the correct price election for the 1999 crop of 
     $11.00 per bushel been used; and
       (2) the amount the producer actually received under the 
     policy using the erroneous price election of $6.25 per 
     bushel.
       (b) Premium Deduction.--The amount determined under 
     subsection (a) for a producer shall be reduced by an amount 
     equal to the additional premium (if any) that the producer 
     would have paid for a policy for the 1999 fresh market 
     peaches crop that used the correct price election.

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I am here today on behalf of peach growers 
in my State who may lose their farms, their livelihoods, unfortunately, 
because of a bureaucratic mistake.
  Last January, much of the Michigan peach crop was devastated by a 
cold snap when temperatures plummeted to 15 degrees below 0. That was 
the high for a number of days. We knew then that the entire peach crop 
was going to be gone, literally dead on the branches, would not recover 
in the spring. But when the farmers turned to USDA for help, there was 
even more bad news.
  The Risk Management Agency miscalculated our farmers' reimbursements 
providing them, yes, with relief but well below the amount that they 
deserved, expected, and what they need, in fact, to recover. In fact, 
we learned later on that when the disaster payments went out this 
summer, the same peaches in other States under this program were 
getting nearly twice as much per bushel. That is not right.
  Now, there is some good news. The USDA admitted that they had made a 
mistake and, in fact, they wanted to make amends and they recalculated 
with a new formula to determine what the disaster payment really ought 
to be. But, unfortunately, those new payments will not affect the 
disaster program for peaches until next year, which means that this 
year our farmers are out.
  What this amendment would have done is it would have provided a 
retroactive payment to Michigan peach farmers based on the correct 
information because we would feel that it is not fair to make peach 
farmers pay a price for an error by USDA.
  Now, because a point of order could have been made against this 
amendment, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw it. But I would 
like to note that I am working with the Committee on Appropriations 
members and they have given me a pretty good assurance that they plan 
to include this language as part of the agriculture appropriations 
conference report.
  I have discussed it with a number of folks at the Department of 
Agriculture, including the Secretary of Agriculture earlier today, and 
they know of the problems that we have and would like to work with us 
to make sure that our peach farmers, in fact, are not discriminated 
against.
  Mr. Chairman, I have talked to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Combest), chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, and I yield 
to him.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and 
would certainly encourage the USDA to see if there is some way they 
could rectify this problem.
  The gentleman has been very strongly representative of his people in 
his district, recognizing there was an initial problem, and I 
appreciate his tenacity.
  It is also my understanding that the report language in the 
appropriations conference report will also address this subject. I 
appreciate the willingness of the gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the comments of the 
chairman.
  I also want to commend our fellow Michigander on the Committee on 
Agriculture, who asked some pretty tough questions and asked us to 
deliver a better peach price with Gus Schumacher, representative of the 
USDA.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield briefly to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) who helped carry the ball in the 
committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much 
for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it was simply a mistake. They made a mistake on the 
crop insurance. They put the wrong price down. And who ended up 
suffering, of course, is our farmers that bought that insurance with 
the mistake incorporated in that contract. So it does need to be 
corrected.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, our peaches ought to be treated the same as 
peaches from other States no matter where they are.

[[Page H8991]]

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate not only the chairman of the 
committee but the ranking member and all the Members who worked in a 
very bipartisan way to bring this crop insurance bill to the floor 
today. It is an important piece of legislation that will, in fact, give 
our Nation's farmers greater risk management tools that they need given 
the new environment that we are all operating in.

                              {time}  1245

  There has been a lot said on the floor today about our farm policy. 
Like my colleague from Georgia said, we need to remember the forgotten 
parts of the farm policy that we put in place some 3 years ago. We knew 
then as we began to move agriculture to more market orientation that it 
was going to be essential that we work with the agriculture community 
to provide more risk management tools. That is what we are doing today: 
This extra money for crop insurance, the program is more flexible, it 
will work for more farmers, an essential part of what we need to do to 
make the farm policy that we have work more efficiently.
  Secondly, we talked about the need to have regulatory reform, so that 
we bring some common sense to the regulations the farmers have to deal 
with that do nothing more, in some cases, other than drive up costs for 
farmers, making them less and less profitable. There is certainly an 
awful lot of room for improvement that we all need to be paying 
attention to. But we all know that the real cause of the current crisis 
in agriculture is what happened in Southeast Asia some 2 years ago when 
the bottom fell out of their markets, when their currencies were 
devalued and they were unable to continue buying our commodities at the 
rate that they were. But an important part of our farm policy was to 
make sure that we were out there opening new markets for our crops. 
About 40 percent of what we raise and produce in this country, we 
export somewhere around the world. If we are not exporting that 
product, it is going to lay here in our markets and drive down prices. 
That is exactly what has happened.
  Not only do we see now some strengthening in Southeast Asia but I 
think what this House and this Congress and this administration need to 
get to work on is providing fast track authority to our U.S. trade rep 
so that we in this country can go out and begin to open markets for our 
farmers. Until we open markets for our farmers, we are going to have 
excess production. It is going to lay over the markets and drive down 
prices. The only other answer is to go back to what we did for 60 
years, and that is to get back into this business of the Federal 
Government telling farmers how much they can plant, how much they can 
harvest and try to have some type of supply management program run by 
Washington, D.C. Farmers do not want that, most Members of Congress do 
not want that. And so if we are going to avoid that, what we need to do 
is to get out there and open those markets and help our farmers. But 
what we are doing today is an important part of making that farm policy 
work, providing these risk management tools to our farmers so that they 
can better ensure their own success down the road.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
want to associate myself with his remarks. I hope that this might prove 
what I hear is happening on the agriculture appropriations to be 
unfounded. We have an opportunity to drop the sanctions language. One 
of the things that has hurt agriculture time and time again is when we 
have had sanctions on other countries applied that have a devastating 
effect on our agriculture producers. And so I hope that we will be able 
to deal in a very responsible way on the agriculture appropriations 
bill in eliminating these sanctions and the resulting lack of market 
opportunities for our producers.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, I also want to congratulate the 
chairman of the committee and the ranking member who have announced 
that we are going to have a set of hearings early next year to look at 
our farm policy. I think it is an appropriate time to take an honest 
and a thorough look as to what is working in our farm policy, what is 
not, and what we as Members of Congress can do to improve it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, American agriculture is in a very serious situation 
right now. While the rest of the economy is experiencing strong profits 
and strong employment and good income, farmers are at the lowest level 
of net profits that they have been in many years. That comes from two 
consequences: One is the natural disaster of the weather that for a lot 
of farmers has substantially reduced their yields all the way to almost 
zero in some cases; and the other problem is the commodity prices. The 
commodity prices are the lowest, record low commodity prices. For 
example, in soybeans, lower price than there has been in soybeans in 30 
years, corn, rice, cotton, livestock production especially in the area 
of hog production, the kind of commodity prices that are devastating 
farmers.
  I spoke last week to a fourth-generation hog producer in my area of 
Michigan, where his great grandfather and his grandfather and his 
father all were successful in running that operation. Now he is 
threatened with bankruptcy, a very serious situation. But it is not 
just the farmers. It is not just the 1.5 percent of our population in 
this country that are out there on the farm working their 16 hours a 
day or 18 hours a day. It is also the consumers. Because if we do not 
move ahead with this kind of legislation, if we do not move ahead in 
ways that we help assure that our farmers in America are not put at a 
competitive disadvantage with farmers in other countries because of how 
those other countries are subsidizing their farmers plus how they are 
keeping our products out of their markets, then we are going to lose 
our agriculture industry in this country. I think we have got to be 
very conscious of what the consequences are of losing our ability to 
produce food and fiber in this country for our consumers. I think it 
deserves a reminder that the American public buys food at a lower 
percentage of their take-home income and buy the highest quality food 
in the world. And so we need to maintain those kind of provisions for 
the consumers in our country. That is why everybody in this Chamber 
needs to be concerned with the future of agriculture. This bill moves 
us along the route of helping assure that our farmers can survive.
  As I met with my farmers in Michigan, they told me that it is silly 
for them to buy this crop insurance because they only have a disaster 
once every 14 years, or 16 years, or 18 years. And so the higher priced 
premium that has been charged to accommodate all areas of the country, 
even those areas, of course, with the higher frequency of disaster, 
makes it not worthwhile for our farmers to buy that kind of insurance.
  So the amendment that the committee adopted and those that are in 
this bill account in two ways to look at premiums based on how often 
there are disasters in particular regions, and to change those premiums 
to reflect the frequency of those disasters. Also, we incorporated 
language in this bill that says that we will work on developing 
insurance that has a more targeted consideration of the price of the 
commodity. Right now this bill is mostly sunshine insurance, or natural 
disaster insurance, with a small provision on helping assure that the 
price is either in the winter months or in the fall months, there is 
that option of the higher price. But this bill says to look and explore 
other avenues to add to the tools that a farmer has to be risk 
management tools to help assure that they can run their business the 
way anybody else runs their business. And as we continue to be in a 
free market system, as we continue to let the marketplace help 
influence that farmer on how much of what crop to plant, this kind of 
insurance help from the Federal Government is reasonable and it is 
necessary.

[[Page H8992]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:

                TITLE II--IMPROVING PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES

     SEC. 201. LIMITATION ON DOUBLE INSURANCE.

       Section 508(a) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(a)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (9), as 
     added by section 112, the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Limitation on double insurance.--
       ``(A) Restricted to catastrophic risk protection.--Except 
     for situations covered by subparagraph (B), no policy or plan 
     of insurance may be offered under this title for more than 
     one agricultural commodity planted on the same acreage in the 
     same crop year unless the coverage for the additional crop is 
     limited to catastrophic risk protection available under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(B) Exception for double-cropping.--A policy or plan of 
     insurance may be offered under this title for an agricultural 
     commodity and for an additional agricultural commodity when 
     both agricultural commodities are normally harvested within 
     the same crop year on the same acreage if the following 
     conditions are met:
       ``(i) There is an established practice of double-cropping 
     in the area and the additional agricultural commodity is 
     customarily double-cropped in the area with the first 
     agricultural commodity, as determined by the Corporation.
       ``(ii) A policy or plan of insurance for the first 
     agricultural commodity and the additional agricultural 
     commodity is available under this title.
       ``(iii) The additional commodity is planted on or before 
     the final planting date or late planting date for that 
     additional commodity, as established by the Corporation.''.

     SEC. 202. IMPROVING PROGRAM COMPLIANCE AND INTEGRITY.

       (a) Additional Methods.--Section 506(q) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506(q)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3);
       (2) by inserting after the subsection heading the following 
     new paragraph (1):
       ``(1) Purpose.--The purpose of this subsection is to 
     improve compliance with the Federal crop insurance program 
     and to improve program integrity.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) Reconciling producer information.--The Secretary 
     shall develop and implement a coordinated plan for the 
     Corporation and the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency 
     to reconcile all relevant information received by the 
     Corporation or the Farm Service Agency from a producer who 
     obtains crop insurance coverage under this title. Beginning 
     with the 2000 crop year, the Secretary shall require that the 
     Corporation and the Farm Service Agency reconcile such 
     producer-derived information on at least an annual basis in 
     order to identify and address any discrepancies.
       ``(5) Identification and elimination of fraud, waste, and 
     abuse.--
       ``(A) FSA monitoring program.--The Secretary shall develop 
     and implement a coordinated plan for the Farm Service Agency 
     to assist the Corporation in the ongoing monitoring of 
     programs carried out under this title, including--
       ``(i) conducting fact finding relative to allegations of 
     program fraud, waste, and abuse, both at the request of the 
     Corporation or on its own initiative after consultation with 
     the Corporation;
       ``(ii) reporting any allegation of fraud, waste, and abuse 
     or identified program vulnerabilities to the Corporation in a 
     timely manner; and
       ``(iii) assisting the Corporation and approved insurance 
     providers in auditing a statistically appropriate number of 
     claims made under any policy or plan of insurance under this 
     title.
       ``(B) Use of field infrastructure.--The plan required by 
     this paragraph shall use the field infrastructure of the Farm 
     Service Agency, and the Secretary shall ensure that relevant 
     Farm Service Agency personnel are appropriately trained for 
     any responsibilities assigned to them under the plan. At a 
     minimum, such personnel shall receive the same level of 
     training and pass the same basic competency tests as required 
     of loss adjusters of approved insurance providers.
       ``(C) Maintenance of provider effort; cooperation.--The 
     activities of the Farm Service Agency under this paragraph do 
     not affect the responsibility of approved insurance providers 
     to conduct any audits of claims or other program reviews 
     required by the Corporation. If an insurance provider reports 
     to the Corporation that it suspects intentional 
     misrepresentation, fraud, waste, or abuse, the Corporation 
     shall make a determination and provide a written response 
     within 90 days after receiving the report. The insurance 
     provider and the Corporation shall take coordinated action in 
     any case where misrepresentation, fraud, waste, or abuse has 
     occurred.
       ``(6) Consultation with state committees.--The Corporation 
     shall establish a mechanism under which State committees of 
     the Farm Service Agency are consulted concerning policies and 
     plans of insurance offered in a State under this title.
       ``(7) Annual report on compliance efforts.--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 an annual report containing 
     findings relative to the efforts undertaken pursuant to 
     paragraphs (4) and (5). The report shall identify specific 
     occurrences of waste, fraud, and abuse and contain an outline 
     of actions that have been or are being taken to eliminate the 
     identified waste, fraud, and abuse.''.
       (b) Technical Correction.--Paragraph (3) of section 506(q) 
     of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506(q)), as 
     redesignated by subsection (a), is amended by striking ``this 
     subsection'' and inserting ``this paragraph''.

     SEC. 203. SANCTIONS FOR FALSE INFORMATION.

       (a) Authorized Sanctions.--Section 506(n) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506(n)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Penalties'' 
     and inserting ``Sanctions for Violations'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and, in 
     such paragraph, by striking ``penalty'' and ``assessing 
     penalties'' and inserting ``sanction'' and ``imposing a 
     sanction'', respectively; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(1) False information.--If a producer, an agent, a loss 
     adjuster, an approved insurance provider, or any other person 
     willfully and intentionally provides any false or inaccurate 
     information to the Corporation or to an approved insurance 
     provider with respect to a policy or plan of insurance under 
     this title, the Corporation may, after notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing on the record, impose one or more 
     of the sanctions specified in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Authorized sanctions.--The following sanctions may be 
     imposed for a violation under paragraph (1):
       ``(A) The Corporation may impose a civil fine for each 
     violation not to exceed the greater of--
       ``(i) the amount of the pecuniary gain obtained as a result 
     of the false or inaccurate information provided; or
       ``(ii) $10,000.
       ``(B) If the violation is committed by a producer, the 
     producer may be disqualified for a period of up to 5 years 
     from--
       ``(i) participating in, or receiving any benefit provided 
     under this title, the noninsured crop disaster assistance 
     program under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333), the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.), 
     the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.), the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714 et 
     seq.), or the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 
     1281 et seq.);
       ``(ii) receiving any loan made, insured, or guaranteed 
     under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1921 et. seq.);
       ``(iii) receiving any benefit provided, or indemnity made 
     available, under any other law to assist a producer of an 
     agricultural commodity due to a crop loss or a decline in 
     commodity prices; or
       ``(iv) receiving any cost share assistance for conservation 
     or any other assistance provided under title XII of the Food 
     Security Act (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.).
       ``(C) If the violation is committed by an agent, loss 
     adjuster, approved insurance provider, or any other person 
     (other than a producer), the violator may be disqualified for 
     a period of up to 5 years from participating in, or receiving 
     any benefit provided under this title.
       ``(D) If the violation is committed by a producer, the 
     Corporation may require the producer to forfeit any premium 
     owed under the policy, notwithstanding a denial of claim or 
     collection of an overpayment, if the false or inaccurate 
     information was material.''.
       (b) Disclosure of Sanctions.--Section 506(n) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506(n)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Disclosure of sanctions.--Each policy or plan of 
     insurance under this title shall prominently indicate the 
     sanctions prescribed under paragraph (2) for willfully and 
     intentionally providing false or inaccurate information to 
     the Corporation or to an approved insurance provider.''.

     SEC. 204. PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

       Section 502 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1502) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Protection of Confidential Information.--
       ``(1) Authorized disclosure.--In the case of information 
     furnished by a producer to participate in or receive any 
     benefit under this title, the Secretary, any other officer or 
     employee of the Department or an agency thereof, an approved 
     insurance provider and its employees and contractors, and any 
     other person may not disclose the information to the public, 
     unless the information has been transformed into a 
     statistical or aggregate form that does not allow the 
     identification of the person who supplied particular 
     information.
       ``(2) Violations; penalties.--Subsection (c) of section 
     1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 2276) shall 
     apply with respect to the release of information collected in 
     any manner or for any purpose prohibited by paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 205. RECORDS AND REPORTING.

       (a) Condition of Obtaining Coverage.--Section 508(f)(3)(A) 
     of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(f)(3)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``provide, to the extent required by the 
     Corporation, records acceptable to the Corporation of 
     historical acreage and production of the crops for which the 
     insurance is sought'' and inserting ``provide annually 
     records acceptable to the Secretary regarding crop acreage, 
     acreage yields, and production for each agricultural 
     commodity insured under this title''.
       (b) Coordination of Records.--Section 506(h) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506(h)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Corporation'' and inserting the 
     following:

[[Page H8993]]

       ``(1) In general.--The Corporation''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Coordination and use of records.--
       ``(A) Coordination between agencies.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that recordkeeping and reporting requirements under 
     this title and section 196 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) are 
     coordinated by the Corporation and the Farm Service Agency to 
     avoid duplication of such records, to streamline procedures 
     involved with the submission of such records, and to enhance 
     the accuracy of such records.
       ``(B) Use of records.--Notwithstanding section 502(c), 
     records submitted in accordance with this title and section 
     196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
     1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) shall be available to agencies and local 
     offices of the Department, appropriate State and Federal 
     agencies and divisions, and approved insurance providers for 
     use in carrying out this title and such section 196 as well 
     as other agricultural programs and related 
     responsibilities.''.
       (c) Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program.--Section 
     196(b) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act 
     of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Records.--To be eligible for assistance under this 
     section, a producer shall provide annually to the Secretary, 
     acting through the Agency, records of crop acreage, acreage 
     yields, and production for each eligible crop.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``annual'' after ``shall 
     provide''.

     SEC. 206. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 508 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(o) Compliance With State Licensing Requirements.--Any 
     person who sells or solicits the purchase of a policy or plan 
     of insurance under this title, including catastrophic risk 
     protection, in any State shall be licensed and otherwise 
     qualified to do business in that State.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:

                       TITLE III--ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 301. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CORPORATION.

       (a) Change in Composition.--Section 505 of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1505) is amended by striking the 
     section heading, ``Sec. 505.'', and subsection (a) and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 505. MANAGEMENT OF CORPORATION.

       ``(a) Board of Directors.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The management of the Corporation 
     shall be vested in a Board of Directors subject to the 
     general supervision of the Secretary.
       ``(2) Composition.--The Board shall consist of only the 
     following members:
       ``(A) The manager of the Corporation, who shall serve as a 
     nonvoting ex officio member.
       ``(B) The Under Secretary of Agriculture responsible for 
     the Federal crop insurance program.
       ``(C) One additional Under Secretary of Agriculture (as 
     designated by the Secretary).
       ``(D) The Chief Economist of the Department of Agriculture.
       ``(E) One person experienced in the crop insurance 
     business.
       ``(F) One person experienced in the regulation of 
     insurance.
       ``(G) Four active producers who are policy holders, are 
     from different geographic areas of the United States, and 
     represent a cross-section of agricultural commodities grown 
     in the United States. At least one of the four shall be a 
     specialty crop producer.
       ``(3) Appointment of private sector members.--The members 
     of the Board described in subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) of 
     paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) shall be appointed by, and hold office at the 
     pleasure of, the Secretary; and
       ``(B) shall not be otherwise employed by the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(4) Chairperson.--The Board shall select a member of the 
     Board to serve as Chairperson.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Effect on Existing Board.--A member of the Board of 
     Directors of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation on the 
     effective date specified in subsection (b) may continue to 
     serve as a member of the Board until the earlier of the 
     following:
       (1) The date the replacement Board is appointed.
       (2) The end of the 180-day period beginning on the 
     effective date specified in subsection (b).

     SEC. 302. PROMOTION OF SUBMISSION OF POLICIES AND RELATED 
                   MATERIALS.

       (a) Reimbursement Authority.--Section 508(h) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)), as amended by section 
     105(a) of this Act, is amended by inserting after paragraph 
     (5) the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Reimbursement of research, development, and 
     maintenance costs.--
       ``(A) Reimbursement provided.--Subject to the conditions of 
     this paragraph, the Corporation shall provide a payment to 
     reimburse an applicant for research, development, and 
     maintenance costs directly related to a policy or other 
     material that is--
       ``(i) submitted to, and approved by, the Board under this 
     subsection for reinsurance; and
       ``(ii) if applicable, offered for sale to producers.
       ``(B) Duration.--Payments under subparagraph (A) may be 
     made available beginning in fiscal year 2001. Payments with 
     respect to the maintenance of an approved policy or other 
     material may be provided for a period of not more than 4 
     reinsurance years following Board approval. Upon the 
     expiration of that 4-year period, or earlier upon the 
     agreement of the Corporation and the person receiving the 
     payment, the Corporation shall assume responsibility for 
     maintenance of a successful policy, as determined by the 
     Corporation based on the market share attained by the policy, 
     the total number of policies sold, the total amount of 
     premium paid, and the performance of the policy in the States 
     where the policy is sold.
       ``(C) Treatment of payment.--Payments made under 
     subparagraph (A) for a policy or other material shall be 
     considered as payment in full for the research and 
     development conducted with regard to the policy or material 
     and any property rights to the policy or material.
       ``(D) Reimbursement amount.--The Corporation shall 
     determine the amount of the payment under subparagraph (A) 
     for an approved policy or other material based on the 
     complexity of the policy or material and the size of the area 
     in which the policy or material is expected to be used.''.
       (b) Issuance of Regulations.--Not later than October 1, 
     2000, the Corporation shall issue final regulations to carry 
     out the amendment made by subsection (a).

     SEC. 303. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING CONTRACTS 
                   REGARDING UNDERSERVED COMMODITIES.

       (a) Support for Private Research and Development.--Section 
     508(m) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(m)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Private research and development of policies and 
     other materials.--
       ``(A) Use of reimbursement authority.--To encourage and 
     promote the necessary research and development for policies, 
     plans of insurance, and related materials, including 
     policies, plans, and materials under the livestock pilot 
     programs under subsection (h)(10), the Corporation shall make 
     full use of private resources by providing payment for 
     research and development for approved policies and plans of 
     insurance, and related materials, pursuant to subsection 
     (h)(6).
       ``(B) Contracts for underserved commodities.--
       ``(i) Development of products and related materials.--In 
     the event the Corporation determines that an agricultural 
     commodity, including a specialty crop, is not adequately 
     served by policies and plans of insurance and related 
     materials submitted under subsection (h) or any other 
     provision of this title, the Corporation may enter into a 
     contract, under procedures prescribed by the Corporation, 
     directly with any person or entity with experience in crop 
     insurance or farm or ranch risk management, including 
     universities, providers of crop insurance, and trade and 
     research organizations, to carry out research and development 
     for policies and plans of insurance and related materials for 
     that agricultural commodity without regard to the limitations 
     contained in this title.
       ``(ii) Types of contracts.--A contract under this 
     subparagraph may provide for research and development 
     regarding new or expanded policies and plans of insurance and 
     related materials, including policies based on adjusted gross 
     income, cost-of-production, quality losses, and an 
     intermediate base program with a higher coverage and cost 
     than catastrophic risk protection.
       ``(iii) Delayed effective date for contracts.--A contract 
     entered into under this subparagraph may not take effect 
     before October 1, 2000.
       ``(iv) Use of resulting policies and plans.--The 
     Corporation may offer any policy or plan of insurance 
     developed under this subparagraph that is approved by the 
     Board.
       ``(C) Contract for revenue coverage plan.--The Corporation 
     shall enter into a contract for research and development 
     regarding one or more revenue coverage plans designed to 
     enable producers to take maximum advantage of fluctuations in 
     market prices and thereby maximize revenue realized from the 
     sale of a crop. Such a plan may include market instruments 
     currently available or may involve the development of new 
     instruments to achieve this goal. Not later than 15 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the 
     Corporation shall submit to Congress a report containing the 
     results of the contract.''.
       (b) Reliance on Private Development of New Policies.--
     Section 508(m)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(m)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Exception.--No action'' and inserting--
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Private availability.--No action''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Prohibited research and development by corporation.--
     Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (5), on and after October 
     1, 2000, the Corporation shall not conduct research and 
     development for any new policy or plan of insurance for an 
     agricultural commodity offered under this title. Any policy 
     or plan of insurance developed by the Corporation under this 
     title before that date shall, at the discretion of the 
     Corporation, continue to be offered for sale to producers.''.
       (c) Partnerships for Risk Management Development and 
     Implementation.--Section 508(m) of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(m)) is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (4), as added by subsection (a), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Partnerships for risk management development and 
     implementation.--
       ``(A) Purpose.--The purpose of this paragraph is to 
     authorize the Corporation to enter

[[Page H8994]]

     into partnerships with public and private entities for the 
     purpose of increasing the availability of loss mitigation, 
     financial, and other risk management tools for crop 
     producers, with priority given to risk management tools for 
     producers of agricultural commodities covered by section 196 
     of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (7 U.S.C. 7333) and specialty and underserved commodity 
     producers.
       ``(B) Authority.--Subject to subparagraphs (D) and (E), the 
     Corporation may enter into partnerships with the Cooperative 
     State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the 
     Agricultural Research Service, the National Oceanic 
     Atmospheric Administration, and other appropriate public and 
     private entities with demonstrated capabilities in developing 
     and implementing risk management and marketing options for 
     specialty crops and underserved commodities.
       ``(C) Objectives.--The Corporation may enter into a 
     partnership under subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) to enhance the notice and timeliness of notice of 
     weather conditions that could negatively affect crop yields, 
     quality, and final product use in order to allow producers to 
     take preventive actions to increase end-product profitability 
     and marketability and to reduce the possibility of crop 
     insurance claims;
       ``(ii) to develop a multifaceted approach to pest 
     management and fertilization to decrease inputs, decrease 
     environmental exposure, and increase application efficiency;
       ``(iii) to develop or improve techniques for planning, 
     breeding, planting, growing, maintaining, harvesting, 
     storing, shipping, and marketing that will address quality 
     and quantity challenges associated with year-to-year and 
     regional variations;
       ``(iv) to clarify labor requirements and assist producers 
     in complying with requirements to better meet the physically 
     intense and time-compressed planting, tending, and harvesting 
     requirements associated with the production of specialty 
     crops and underserved commodities;
       ``(v) to provide assistance to State foresters or 
     equivalent officials for the prescribed use of burning on 
     private forest land for the prevention, control, and 
     suppression of fire;
       ``(vi) to provide producers with training and informational 
     opportunities so that they will be better able to use 
     financial management, crop insurance, marketing contracts, 
     and other existing and emerging risk management tools; and
       ``(vii) to develop other risk management tools to further 
     increase economic and production stability.
       ``(D) Funding source.--If the Corporation determines that 
     the entire amount available to provide reimbursement payments 
     under subsection (h) and contract payments under paragraph 
     (4) (in this subparagraph referred to as `reimbursement and 
     contract payments') for a fiscal year is not needed for such 
     purposes, the Corporation may use a portion of the excess 
     amount to carry out this paragraph, subject to the following:
       ``(i) During fiscal years 2001 through 2004, amounts 
     available for reimbursement and contract payments may be used 
     to carry out this paragraph only if the total amount to be 
     used for reimbursement and contract payments is less than 
     $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $47,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and $52,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004.
       ``(ii) During fiscal years 2001 through 2004, the total 
     amount used to carry out this paragraph for a fiscal year may 
     not exceed the difference between the amount specified in 
     clause (i) for that fiscal year and the amount actually used 
     for reimbursement and contract payments.
       ``(E) Delayed authority.--The Corporation may not enter 
     into a partnership under the authority of this paragraph 
     before October 1, 2000.''.

     SEC. 304. FUNDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND RESEARCH AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Expenditures.--Section 508(h)(6) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)(6)), as added by section 
     302(a) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Expenditures.--
       ``(i) Specialty crops.--Of the total amount made available 
     to provide payments under this paragraph and subsection 
     (m)(4)(B) for a fiscal year, $25,000,000 shall be reserved 
     for research and development contracts under subsection 
     (m)(4)(B). The Corporation may use a portion of the reserved 
     amount for other purposes under this paragraph, with priority 
     given to underserved commodities, if the Corporation 
     determines that the entire amount is not needed for such 
     contracts. If the reserved amount is insufficient for a 
     fiscal year, the Corporation may use amounts in excess of the 
     reserved amount for such contracts.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--In providing payments under this 
     paragraph and subsection (m)(4)(B), the Corporation shall not 
     obligate or expend more than $55,000,000 during any fiscal 
     year.''.
       (b) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 516(a)(2) of 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516(a)(2)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Costs associated with the reimbursement for research, 
     development, and maintenance costs of approved policies and 
     other materials provided under section 508(h)(6) and 
     contracting for research and development under section 
     508(m)(4)(B).''.
       (2) Use of insurance fund.--Section 516(b)(1) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516(b)(1)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Reimbursement for research, development, and 
     maintenance costs of approved policies and other materials 
     provided under section 508(h)(6) and contracting for research 
     and development under section 508(m)(4)(B).''.

     SEC. 305. BOARD CONSIDERATION OF SUBMITTED POLICIES AND 
                   MATERIALS.

       (a) Persons Authorized To Submit.--Section 508(h)(1) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)(1)) is amended 
     by inserting after ``a person'' the following: ``(including 
     an approved insurance provider, a college or university, a 
     cooperative or trade association, or any other person)''.
       (b) Sale by Approved Insurance Providers.--Section 
     508(h)(3) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(h)(3)) is amended by inserting after ``for sale'' the 
     following: ``by approved insurance providers''.
       (c) Time Periods for Approval or Disapproval.--Section 
     508(h)(4)(A) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(h)(4)(A)), as amended by section 105(c), is amended--
       (1) in clause (iii), as redesignated by section 105(c), by 
     striking ``of the applicant.'' and all that follows through 
     the end of the clause and inserting 
     ``, and such application, as modified, shall be considered by 
     the Board in the manner provided in clause (iv) within the 
     30-day period beginning on the date the modified application 
     is submitted. Any notification of intent to disapprove a 
     policy or other material submitted under this subsection 
     shall be accompanied by a complete explanation as to the 
     reasons for the Board's intention to deny approval.''; and
       (2) by striking clause (iv), as redesignated by section 
     105(c), and inserting the following new clause:
       ``(iv) Not later than 120 days after a policy or other 
     material is submitted under this subsection, the Board shall 
     make a determination to approve or disapprove such policy or 
     material. Any determination by the Board to disapprove any 
     policy or other material shall be accompanied by a complete 
     explanation of the reasons for the Board's decision to deny 
     approval. In the event the Board fails to make a 
     determination within the prescribed time period, the 
     submitted policy or other material shall be deemed approved 
     by the Board for the initial reinsurance year designated for 
     the policy or material, except in the case where the Board 
     and the applicant agree to an extension.''.
       (d) Funding To Expedite Consideration.--Effective October 
     1, 2000, section 516(b)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1516(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Research and development expenses.--'' 
     and inserting ``Policy consideration expenses.--''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``research and 
     development expenses of the Corporation'' and inserting 
     ``costs associated with considering for approval or 
     disapproval policies and other materials under subsections 
     (h) and (m)(4) of section 508, costs associated with 
     implementing such subsection (m)(4), and costs to contract 
     out for assistance in considering such policies and other 
     materials''.

     SEC. 306. CONTRACTING FOR RATING OF PLANS OF INSURANCE.

       Section 507(c)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1507(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``actuarial, loss adjustment,'' and 
     inserting ``actuarial services, services relating to loss 
     adjustment and rating plans of insurance,''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``private sector'' the following: 
     ``and to enable the Corporation to concentrate on regulating 
     the provision of insurance under this title and evaluating 
     new products and materials submitted under section 508(h)''.

     SEC. 307. ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY OF CROP INSURANCE 
                   INFORMATION.

       Section 508(a)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(a)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii) and moving such clauses 2 ems to the right;
       (2) by striking ``The Corporation'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) Available information.--The Corporation''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Use of electronic methods.--The Corporation shall 
     make the information described in subparagraph (A) available 
     electronically to producers and approved insurance providers. 
     To the maximum extent practicable, the Corporation shall also 
     allow producers and approved insurance providers to use 
     electronic methods to submit information required by the 
     Corporation.''.

     SEC. 308. FEES FOR USE OF NEW POLICIES AND PLANS OF 
                   INSURANCE.

       Section 508(h) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(11) Fees for new policies and plans of insurance.--
       ``(A) Authority to impose fee.--Effective beginning with 
     fiscal year 2001, if a person develops a new policy or plan 
     of insurance and does not apply for reimbursement of 
     research, development, and maintenance costs under paragraph 
     (6), the person shall have the right to receive a fee from 
     any approved insurance provider that elects to sell the new 
     policy or plan of insurance. Notwithstanding paragraph (5), 
     once the right to collect a fee is asserted with respect to a 
     new policy or plan of insurance, no approved insurance 
     provider may offer the new policy or plan of insurance in the 
     absence of a fee agreement with the person who developed the 
     policy or plan.
       ``(B) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph only, the 
     term `new policy or plan of insurance' means a policy or plan 
     of insurance that was approved by the Board on or after 
     October 1, 2000, and was not available at the time the policy 
     or plan of insurance was approved by the Board.
       ``(C) Amount.--The amount of the fee that is payable by an 
     approved insurance provider to offer a new policy or a plan 
     of insurance under

[[Page H8995]]

     subparagraph (A) shall be an amount that is determined by the 
     person that developed the new policy or plan of insurance, 
     subject to the approval of the Board under subparagraph (D).
       ``(D) Approval.--The Board shall approve the amount of a 
     fee determined under subparagraph (C) for a new policy or 
     plan of insurance unless the Board can demonstrate that the 
     fee amount--
       ``(i) is unreasonable in relation to the research and 
     development costs associated with the new policy or plan of 
     insurance; and
       ``(ii) unnecessarily inhibits the use of the new policy or 
     plan of insurance.''.

     SEC. 309. CLARIFICATION OF PRODUCER REQUIREMENT TO FOLLOW 
                   GOOD FARMING PRACTICES.

       Section 508(a)(3)(C) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(a)(3)(C)) is amended by inserting after ``good 
     farming practices'' the following: ``, including 
     scientifically sound sustainable and organic farming 
     practices''.

     SEC. 310. REIMBURSEMENTS AND RENEGOTIATION OF STANDARD 
                   REINSURANCE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Reimbursement Rate Changes.--
       (1) CAT loss adjustment.--Section 508(b)(11) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)(11)) is amended by 
     striking ``11 percent'' and inserting ``8 percent''.
       (2) Reimbursement for administrative and operating costs.--
     Section 508(k)(4)(A)(ii) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``24.5 
     percent'' and inserting ``24 percent''.
       (3) Application of amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     subsection shall apply with respect to the 2001 and 
     subsequent reinsurance years.
       (b) Renegotiation.--Effective for the 2002 reinsurance 
     year, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation may renegotiate 
     the Standard Reinsurance Agreement.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Add at the end of title III the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PARTICIPATION OF 
                   MINORITY AND LIMITED-RESOURCE PRODUCERS IN CROP 
                   INSURANCE PROGRAMS.

       It is the Sense of Congress that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture should ensure the full participation of minority 
     and limited-resource farmers and ranchers in the programs 
     operating under the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by 
     this Act.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment specifically to 
H.R. 2559 provides for a sense of Congress for the full participation 
of minority and limited resource farmers and ranchers in programs 
operating under the Federal Crop Insurance Act as amended by the 
Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 1999.
  First of all, let me thank the chairman and ranking member, both from 
Texas, for their cooperation in this sense of Congress. Many of them 
are aware that all of us as members of the Congressional Black Caucus 
have been working over the years with African-American farmers. In 
particular, those of us who live in urban or inner city communities 
have found ourselves more and more educated about the plight of the 
black farmer, in particular because many who have lost their land have 
moved into our cities or in fact some of our residents who live in our 
district still retain farming connections, as we call it, in the 
country. In fact, one of the sites for the black farmers meeting was 
Houston. Another site is Detroit, Michigan; both urban centers.
  H.R. 2559, in particular, provides viable risk management tools which 
are imperative for producers. Crop insurance is a critical tool in a 
producer's risk management tool box, one which must be more affordable, 
equitable and more broadly available.
  While farming and ranching has been declining in our country, 
minority and limited resource farmers have faced a severe loss of their 
farms over the last 70 years. According to the most recent census of 
agriculture, the number of all minority farms have fallen from 950,000 
in 1920 to 60,000 in 1992. For African Americans, the number fell from 
925,000, 14 percent of all farms in 1920, to only 18,000, 1 percent of 
all farms in 1992. Although the number of farms owned by other 
minorities has increased in recent years, particularly among Hispanics, 
the total acres of land farmed by these groups have actually declined. 
Only women have seen an increase in both the number of farms and 
acreage farmed.
  H.R. 2559 goes a long way in ensuring that all farmers and ranchers 
have access to crop insurance. We need to particularly be mindful of 
our minority and limited resource farmers and ranchers. And so this 
amendment puts the sunlight and the highlight on our minority and 
limited resource farmers and ranchers to ensure that the programs 
operating under the Federal Crop Insurance Act do reach out to them. 
This measure is an important first step toward meeting this goal. I 
urge my colleagues to support not only this particular legislation but 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to support H.R. 2559, the Agriculture Risk 
Protection Act of 1999. This legislation would enact needed 
improvements to the current crop insurance program for farmers and 
ranchers. H.R. 2559 provides substantial improvements that will 
strengthen program performance and participation across all commodities 
and regions of the country.
  Viable risk management tools are imperative for producers. Crop 
insurance is a critical tool in a producer's ``risk management tool 
box''--one which must be more affordable, equitable and more broadly 
available.
  H.R. 2559 amends the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the 
safety net for agriculture producers by providing greater access to 
more affordable risk management tools and improved protection from 
production and income loss, to improve the efficiency and integrity of 
the Federal crop insurance program.
  While farming and ranching has been declining in our country, 
minority and limited-resource farmers have faced a severe loss of their 
farms over the last 70 years. According to the most recent Census of 
Agriculture, the number of all minority farms has fallen--from 950,000 
in 1920 to around 60,000 in 1992. For African-Americans, the number 
fell from 925,000, 14 percent of all farms in 1920, to only 18,000, 1 
percent of all farms in 1992. Although the number of farms owned by 
other minorities has increased in recent years, particularly among 
Hispanics, the total acres of land farmed by these groups has actually 
declined. Only women have seen an increase in both number of farms and 
acres farmed.
  H.R. 2559 goes a long way in ensuring that all farmers and ranchers 
have access to crop insurance. We need to be particularly mindful of 
our minority and limited-resource farmers and ranchers. This measure is 
an important first step toward meeting this goal. I urge my colleagues 
to do the right thing and support H.R. 2559 in a bipartisan manner.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I would say to the gentlewoman that the crop insurance program 
obviously is a voluntary program which should be open and we would 
always want it to be open to any individual who qualifies as a farmer. 
And that the intent of this bill is to create an additional menu of 
insurance options that are available to hopefully be able to reach and 
to meet the specific needs that some farmers may have that may not fit 
into a bigger box. That is the whole purpose, to create new programs 
available. Certainly without singling out or giving a priority to 
anyone, I just want to make sure the record is clear that this program 
is available voluntarily to any farmer who wishes to participate who 
does qualify.
  With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would rise in support and urge the 
adoption of the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to say that it certainly was the full intent of the Committee 
on Agriculture that all farmers be allowed full participation in this. 
I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas with the sense of Congress 
resolution that she offers today which will highlight the full intent 
of that. I commend her for bringing this, and I urge support of the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

              TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE AND IMPLEMENTATION

     SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as provided in sections 301(b) and 305(d), this Act 
     and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act. The actual implementation 
     by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Corporation of an amendment made by this Act shall 
     depend on the terms of the amendment or, in the absence of an 
     express implementation date in the amendment, the special 
     rules specified in section 402.

[[Page H8996]]

     SEC. 402. SPECIAL RULES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Implementation for 2000 Crop Year.--The amendments made 
     by the following sections of this Act shall apply beginning 
     with the 2000 crop year:
       (1) Section 104, relating to review and adjustment in 
     rating methodologies.
       (2) Section 106, relating to cost of production as a price 
     election.
       (3) Section 107, relating to premium discounts for good 
     performance.
       (4) Section 202, relating to improving program compliance 
     and integrity.
       (5) Section 203, relating to sanctions for false 
     information.
       (6) Section 204, relating to protection of confidential 
     information.
       (7) Section 205, relating to records and reporting.
       (8) Section 206, relating to compliance with State 
     licensing requirements.
       (9) Section 309, relating to requirement to follow good 
     farming practices.
       (b) Implementation for Fiscal Year 2000.--The amendments 
     made by the following sections of this Act shall apply 
     beginning with fiscal year 2000:
       (1) Section 105(a), relating to repeal of obsolete pilot 
     programs.
       (2) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) and section 305, relating 
     to Board consideration of submitted policies and materials.
       (3) Section 306, relating to contracting for rating plans 
     of insurance.
       (4) Section 307, relating to electronic availability of 
     crop insurance information.
       (c) Implemenation for 2001 Crop Year.--The amendments made 
     by the following sections of this Act shall apply beginning 
     with the 2001 crop year:
       (1) Section 101, relating to premium schedule for 
     additional coverage.
       (2) Section 102, relating to premium schedule for other 
     plans of insurance.
       (3) Section 103(b), relating to adjustment in production 
     history to reflect pest control.
       (4) Section 109, relating to authority for nonprofit 
     associations to pay fees on behalf of producers.
       (5) Section 110, relating to elections regarding prevented 
     planting coverage.
       (6) Section 111, relating to limitations under noninsured 
     crop disaster assistance program.
       (7) Section 201, relating to limitation on double 
     insurance.
       (d) Implementation for Fiscal Year 2001.--The amendments 
     made by the following sections of this Act shall apply 
     beginning with fiscal year 2001:
       (1) Section 105(b), relating to general requirements 
     applicable to pilot programs.
       (2) Section 304, relating to funding for reimbursement and 
     research and development.

     SEC. 403. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       The Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and 
     section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333), as in effect on day before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, shall continue to apply 
     with respect to the 1999 crop year and shall apply with 
     respect to the 2000 crop year, to the extent the application 
     of an amendment made by this Act is delayed under section 402 
     or by the terms of the amendment.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

                              {time}  1300

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McHugh) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2559) to 
amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for 
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more affordable 
risk management tools and improved protection from production and 
income loss, to improve the efficiency and integrity of the Federal 
crop insurance program, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 308, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the Committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________