Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 129 (Wednesday, September 29, 1999)

[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

TITLE II--IMPROVING PROGRAM INTEGRITY

TITLE III--ADMINISTRATION

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.

____________________