[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S532-S535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 165. A bill to amend the Agriculture Market Transition Act to 
increase loan rates for marketing assistance loans for each of the 2001 
and 2002 crops, to make nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan 
deficiency payments available to producers of dry peas, lentils, 
chickpeas, and rye, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to talk 
about farming. The pages of the calendar have now turned. It is a new 
year, but our family farmers face the same struggle, and in fact, in 
many ways, the struggle gets worse.
  Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation titled the FARM 
Equity Act of 2001 that is designed to equalize the presently disparate 
commodity Marketing Assistance Loan rates of the current farm bill, 
commonly referred to as Freedom to Farm. The legislation would increase 
all commodity loan rates up to soybean and minor oilseed loan levels 
based on historical price ratios amongst the commodities. The FARM 
Equity Act would also treat all commodities equally in that it would 
place a price floor under all commodity loan rates, not just a select 
few.
  The FARM Equity Act will leave soybeans at the current loan level--
$5.26 per bushel. This price is about 85 percent of the Olympic Average 
of soybean market prices from the years 1994 to 1998. All other crops 
will be equalized up to this same price ratio related to each crops 
respective Olympic Average during the same time period. Equalized loan 
rates for wheat would be $3.14 per bushel, for corn--$2.09 per bushel, 
for rice--7.8 cents per pound and for cotton--52.6 cents per pound. All 
these loan levels would become minimum loan levels.
  When Freedom to Farm was passed, supporters intended that this new 
farm legislation would remove all government interference or influences 
from planting decisions. ``Let farmers take their cues from the market 
place'', was heard often during the debate. ``From now on, farmers will 
not plant their crops with an eye towards Washington--they will plant 
what the market tells them to plant.''
  I doubt anyone believes, let alone could debate the point with a 
straight face, that this major premise of Freedom to Farm--the notion 
of market based planting decisions--has become a reality. To the 
contrary, at the present time, the major influence on what type of seed 
goes into the ground on our nation's farms is the level of Market 
Assistance Loan rates available for the various program crops.
  There can be no dispute that soybeans, and the other minor oilseed 
crops, have a much higher loan rate--when compared to historical price 
ratios--than wheat, corn and the other minor feed grains, cotton and 
rice. Likewise, there can be no dispute that the unprecedented increase 
in soybeans and oilseeds acreage seen the last couple of years, is due 
in large part, to these arbitrarily set unequal loan rates. Farmers 
have little choice but to plant more acres of oilseeds for the higher 
loan value, even thought the cash and future markets clearly signal for 
them to do otherwise.
  Does anyone remember ``Green Acres,'' the old TV show from the 
sixties that poked fun of the city slicker--and country folks, for that 
matter--who moved out from New York City to start farming? One of the 
episodes had to do with deciding what crop to plant. I can't remember 
the exact order of events, but the gist of it was this. Oliver Wendell 
Douglas--played by Eddie Albert--listened to the market report while 
having breakfast the morning he was going to start spring planting. The 
price of corn was up, while soybean prices were down, so Oliver 
finished breakfast and away he went to the general store to buy some 
corn seed from Sam Drucker. Oliver then headed out to his field to 
plant corn.
  About noon, Oliver came home for dinner. Now I know to most this meal 
is lunch, but trust me, on the farm--it is called dinner; farmers also 
have a meal called supper that takes place in the evening. But, let's 
get back to Oliver. While he was eating his dinner, the noon markets 
came on, and wouldn't you know it, corn was down, and soybeans were up. 
Well, Oliver was all upset, since he had already planted some of the 
corn.
  Lisa, Oliver's wife, told him just exchange the seed for a different 
kind, ``I always return what I buy back to the stores; why can't you 
just exchange the corn for some soybeans, if that's what you want to 
plant now?''
  Oliver agreed with his wife, and went out and dug up the corn seed, 
put it back in the sack, and headed back to the supply store to trade 
it in for soybeans. Sam Drucker thought he was nuts, of course, and 
everyone had a good laugh.
  Preposterous of course, this parody of farmer indecision where seed 
is actually picked out of the ground, but I mention this episode only 
because today, Oliver Wendell Douglas wouldn't have his ear turned to 
the market reports to decide what to plant. He would simply seed 
soybeans because everyone knows the loan price is the only price that 
matters these days.
  In fact, one market advisor in the Midwest is promoting a ``Plan B'' 
this year that encourages farmers to plant even more soybeans than last 
years record acreage because of the high loan rates in hopes of 
decreasing corn acres enough to increase those prices. Probably not a 
bad idea, given the present market prices and high nitrogen costs. But, 
it's a clear indication of how skewed the present loan levels actually 
are.
  Just how much effect on U.S. crop acres are these unequal loan rates 
having? We need look no further than the annual acreage reports issued 
by USDA. In 1994, US farmers planted a little over 61.6 million acres 
of soybeans. This past year, a record 74.5 million acres were planted 
to soybeans, an increase of over 20 percent.
  For all wheat, USDA tells us the complete opposite is taking place. 
The acreage planted in the U.S. has declined over 12 percent during 
this same period, from 70.3 million acres down to 62.5 acres. A few 
weeks ago, USDA reported that the winter wheat acreage seeded last fall 
is down 5 percent from the fall before. The 41.3 million acres planted 
for harvest this coming summer is the smallest acreage devoted to 
winter wheat since 1971.
  To those who will say that we shouldn't change the components of the 
present Farm Bill in mid-stream, I say, we have repeatedly changed it 
each of the last three years now. We have had three emergency spending 
bills due to the low commodity prices. We have changed payment limits 
on the Loan Deficiency Payments. I might add, equalizing loan rates 
will do more for medium sized family farms than uncapping LDP limits.

[[Page S533]]

  Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman also used his 
administrative authority to keep the loan levels at current levels. 
Just last month, he froze commodity loans at 2000 levels for the 2001 
crop. Had he not, the loan for wheat would have fallen to $2.46, while 
corn would have dropped to $1.76. Even soybeans would have fallen, 
although not to what the formula calls for. You see, soybeans have a 
price floor at $4.92 a bushel. If not for this mandated floor specified 
in the law, the formula in Freedom to Farm would have called for a 
price of $4.58 per bushel.
  Now, I am pleased that the Secretary of Agriculture did this. I found 
it interesting that I received a few calls from angry farmers when the 
former Agriculture Secretary froze loan rates for the coming year at 
2000 levels. They thought he should have raised them and had determined 
his actions were vindictive and meant only to keep commodity loans at 
these low levels. As I have stated, Secretary Glickman prevented 
present law from dropping loan prices even further.
  I don't want to see anymore reductions in loan levels for any of our 
crops. I want all crops to be treated fairly, and equally. I want all 
crops to have the same relative level of price protection. And if one 
or two crops have a loan floor that prevents further erosion in loan 
protection, then all crops should enjoy such a loan floor. That's why I 
have introduced this legislation.
  This is not to say that the loan levels in this legislation are 
adequate. They are not. This is only the first step in many that we 
need to take to fix broken farm policy. And this legislation will put 
all crops on equal footing as we enter the debate on what will 
eventually replace Freedom to Farm. I would prefer that loan levels 
would be higher, that they would reflect the cost of production. Maybe 
later we can have some common sense farm policy that would do such a 
thing, but for now, I think this is the least that we should do, as far 
as loan rates are concerned.
  Although it is not mentioned in this legislation, as part of this 
interim step to preserve our farms, I believe we should restore the 
automatic 20 percent reduction in Agricultural Market Transition 
Payments that will take place this year. It should be restored to the 
2000 levels for the remaining two years of Freedom to Farm, or until we 
replace this legislation altogether. I know others are thinking this 
needs to be done, and I want to go on record as supporting this 
restoration of AMTA payments.
  Before I close, I want to point out the steady erosion of the loan 
levels for most crops over the years. This year, 2001, if this 
legislation isn't enacted, the national loan for wheat will stand at 
$2.58 per bushel. In 1983, the wheat loan was $3.65 per bushel. For 
corn, the present loan rate is $1.89, while in 1983 it was $2.65 per 
bushel. For rice, this year's loan is $6.50 per cwt. In 1983, the rice 
loan was $8.13 per cwt. Cotton's loan this year stands at 52.9 cents 
per lb. 1982 saw a cotton loan rate of a little over 57 cents per lb.
  Now, I saved soybeans until last, for good reason. Of all the major 
crops, soybeans stand alone in that it has a higher loan rate today, 
than in the early 1980's. The soybean loan stood at $5.02 twenty years 
ago, while today, the loan is $5.26. All the other crops dropped, some 
more than others, percentage wise. All, except for soybeans.
  I would also like to point out that the cost of production has 
skyrocketed for all crops the past twenty years. This year alone, 
farmers are facing an astronomical increase in anhydrous ammonia 
prices--the major form of nitrogen fertilizer--due to the skyrocketing 
natural gas prices. As you may know, natural gas comprises 78 percent 
of anhydrous' cost of production. Because of this, family farmers in 
North Dakota, and across the country, are facing a possible doubling of 
their nitrogen fertilizer costs, from the low $200's per ton last year 
to well over $400 per ton this year.
  The cost of fertilizer is just one of many examples where farm costs 
have skyrocketed. Others include their crop protection products, 
insurance costs, machinery costs, etc. The list goes on. No other 
segment of our economy has been asked to take less and less for their 
labors.
  As I have stated earlier, this legislation, the FARM Equity Act of 
2001, is only an interim step. It is not a new farm bill, nor is it the 
answer to the problems. But I believe we should take action now to 
equalize the loan rates. Let's pass this legislation that would leave 
soybeans and other oilseeds at their present loan level while raising 
other crops up to the same relative level, based on historical market 
price relationships as soybeans. It is fair. It is equitable. It is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. President, we have families living all across this country out in 
the country trying to make a go of it on a family farm: Plant some 
seeds, raise a crop, then harvest that crop, take it to the grain 
elevator, and try to raise enough money to keep going and pay the 
bills.
  In addition to having collapsed prices for that which they produce, 
farmers now see the cost of their inputs dramatically increasing. The 
cost of anhydrous ammonia, the most popular form of nitrogen 
fertilizer, is up dramatically because of the spike in natural gas 
costs.
  Farmers are beset in every direction: Monopolies in transportation, 
near monopolies in the grain trade business, and a collapse of the 
prices for that which farmers produce. It is an awfully difficult time.
  So what can be done about this? My first hope would be that this 
Congress would rewrite the current farm bill. I do not think it works 
very well. I do not think we ought to get rid of all of it. The 
planting flexibility makes sense. Let's keep it. But clearly the 
current farm bill has not worked very well. Let's rewrite it and 
provide a price support or a bridge across price valleys for family 
farmers that give them some hope that if they do a good job, and work 
hard, they have a chance to survive out on the family farm.
  But I am told that rewriting the farm bill is not going to happen 
this year because it expires at the end of next year. I understand that 
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the Senate does not want 
to hold hearings on trying to rewrite the farm bill this year. He 
certainly has the capability of blocking that. I respect him, but I 
would disagree with him about this issue. But it is likely we will not 
see progress in rewriting the farm bill this year.
  So then, what should we do? In my judgment, we ought to at least take 
an interim step that would restore some balance to the current price 
protection that exists, as anemic as it is. We ought to provide some 
balance and equality to that price protection with respect to those of 
us who come from the part of the country that produces mostly wheat and 
feed grains.
  We have a circumstance now where the current price support, which is, 
in my judgment, too low, nonetheless has an inequity about it that 
offers a price support substantially higher for oil seeds than it does 
for wheat and feed grains. I am not here to suggest that we take the 
price support for oil seeds down. I am suggesting that it is unfair to 
wheat and feed grains and we ought to bring their price support up to 
provide some equity and fairness. And there is a way to do that.
  I would like to show a couple charts of what has been happening. This 
chart shows crop acres. You can see, going back to 1994, that soybean 
acreage is increasing and wheat acreage is declining, both 
substantially.
  What is happening this year is, a number of farmers are making 
decisions about what to plant, and it has nothing to do with what the 
markets suggest they should plant. It has to do with what their lender 
would calculate is best for them to plant given the farm program price 
support loan levels of the various crops. The loan deficiency payment 
for oil seeds is much higher than for wheat and feed grains on a 
comparable basis, because the loan levels that determine the loan 
deficiency payments are likewise, much higher for oil seeds than the 
other crops. So the result is, they are making planting decisions, once 
again, based on the farm bill rather than on the market. It is because 
we have inequitable price support programs. You can see what has 
happened with the loan rates over time. With soybeans, loan rates have 
increased slightly over the last twenty years, while wheat, corn and 
other feed grain loan rates have declined substantially during the same 
time period.
  My point is this. We ought to be able to provide equity in these loan 
rates by

[[Page S534]]

bringing the loan rate for wheat and feed grains up to an equitable 
level relative to oilseed levels. Doing so would, likewise, provide an 
equitable loan deficiency payment for all crops and would stop this 
calculation of, What should I plant relative to what the farm program 
thinks I should plant?
  As Freedom to Farm passed, its supporters were saying: Let's have the 
market system send signals on what ought to be planted. That is not 
happening at the moment. It is the farm program that is determining 
what is being planted because of the skewed loan support prices. It is 
the farm program that is actually promoting that incentive to plant one 
thing versus another thing. I am not suggesting we fix it by reducing 
the loan rate or the loan deficiency payment for oilseeds. We ought not 
do that. We ought to bring the loan rate for the others up because 
those levels are too low, when compared to oilseeds. It is unfair to 
them.
  Some will remember the old television program ``Green Acres'' from 
long ago in the 1960s. Eddie Albert played a character named Oliver 
Wendell Douglas, who had a pig named Arnold. He was a city slicker who 
moved to the country. It was a television program that poked fun at 
both the city slicker and maybe also at country folks. It was a comedy.
  In one episode, Oliver is having breakfast one morning. He is trying 
to figure out what to plant. He hears the morning grain market report 
on the radio, and the price of soybeans was going down and the price of 
corn was going up. So he decided to go down to the general store and 
get himself some corn seed. All morning he planted corn.
  At noon, Oliver came in for dinner. Back home they call it dinner in 
the middle of the day; some people call it lunch, but we call it 
dinner. He came back for dinner and discovered on the radio that the 
price of corn was down and the price of soybeans was up, according to 
the noon market report. And he said to his wife: It is kind of hard to 
figure out what to do here. I just planted corn because the radio said 
corn was up. Now corn is down, soybeans are up.
  His wife said: When I go to the store and get something that doesn't 
work, I take it back.
  So this old character on ``Green Acres'' went out to the field, 
walked down the furrows and pulled out all of his corn seeds and went 
back to the store to trade them in for soybean seed. Of course, the old 
boy who ran the store that sold him the seed thought he was pretty 
goofy.
  My point about this story is, Oliver Douglas wouldn't have to listen, 
under today's circumstances, to the radio market reports to evaluate 
what he ought to plant, to find out what is down or what is up. In 
today's circumstances, when you take a look at the farm program, what 
is up is a better loan rate for oilseeds, and what is down is an anemic 
loan rate for wheat and feed grains.
  What can be done about that? Bring wheat and feed grain loan rates up 
to where they ought to be. That only brings wheat to $3.14 a bushel, 
but it is a far sight better than where it is today, at $2.58.
  So today, I am introducing a piece of legislation that equalizes loan 
rates. It will not penalize oilseeds. It will leave them where they 
are. Good for them; I want that. I support that and will fight for 
that. But it will take the loan rate for other program crops, including 
wheat, corn, and rice, cotton, and put those loan rates where they 
ought to be relative to some equity vis-a-vis oilseeds.
  I am going to include in the Record a list of all the program crops 
and where I propose we establish their loan rates. The loan rates for 
the various crops were determined by fixing them at the same percentage 
of their 1994-1998 5-year Olympic Average of market prices as the 
soybean loan rate is with respect to its 1994-1998 5-year Olympic 
Average of market prices.
  This is only an interim step. We must do much more, and I have other 
ideas on what we ought to do. But for now, at least as a first step, 
let's provide some fairness for those who are producing wheat and feed 
grains.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the 
Olympic Average price data to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Family Agriculture Recovery & Market (Farm) Equity Act of 2001

       For the 2001 & 2002 Crop Year, The ``FARM Equity'' Act 
     would:
       Equalize the Marketing Loan rate for commodities relative 
     to the current soybean rates. Wheat--$3.14; corn--$2.09; 
     soybeans (unchanged)--$5.26; cotton--$58.26/cwt.; rice--
     $7.81/cwt.; base other feed grain loan rates on their own 
     price history rather than based off the corn rate. Barley--
     $2.01; oats--$1.27; grain sorghum--$1.89; base other oil seed 
     rates off their own price history rather than the soybean 
     loan rate. Oil sunflower--$.0930/lb.; confection sunflower--
     $.1176/lb.; canola--$.0945/lb.; safflower--$.1259/lb.
       Place a floor under all commodity loan rates, not just 
     soybean, cotton and rice loan rates.
       Remove the cap on all commodity loan rates and allow them 
     to increase if the most recent five year Olympic Average of 
     prices of a commodity increases to a level that warrants such 
     an increase.
       Remove the incentive to continue the obvious current 
     prevalent practice of planting for the commodity loan rate, 
     and thus the overproduction of commodities (oilseeds) that 
     have significantly higher loan rates relative to the actual 
     historical market price ratios.
       Keep AMTA payments in place, along with all present payment 
     limitations.
       Enable farmers to practice agronomically sound rotations 
     rather than planting for the government loan.
       Place all commodities on a level playing field with regards 
     to loan rates prior to the debate about the next farm bill.
       Add dry peas, lentils, chickpeas and rye to the list of 
     crops eligible for Marketing Assistance Loans, increasing the 
     rotational choices for farmers in the Pacific Northwest.


                How Were The New Loan Prices Arrived At?

       The 1994-1998 Olympic Average price for a bushel of 
     soybeans is $6.22, as determined by USDA. The present Freedom 
     To Farm loan level for soybeans is $5.26. This is 84.5 
     percent of the 94-98 Oly price average.
       The loan prices for the other crops listed in the FARM 
     Equity Act were derived by taking the soybean factor--
     84.57%--against the other crops' 94-98 Olympic Price 
     averages.
       Oil Sunflowers and Flaxseed were left at the present $.0930 
     per lb. since applying the factor against their Olympic Price 
     averages would have lowered their loan rate--an occurrence 
     that no farm advocate wants for any crop during these hard 
     times down on the farm.
       The ``94-98'' time frame was used, since the seeding 
     distortions and subsequent price distortions caused by 
     Freedom to Farm's disparate loan rates had not yet infected 
     the moving 5 yr. average.
       Find below the loan levels: Marketing Loan Rates were 
     determined by their price history during the years 1994 
     through 1998

 
                                                    ``94-98''
                                          F2F loan   Olympic   Equalized
                  Crop                      rates     price      loans
                                                     average
 
Wheat...................................     $2.58      $3.71      $3.14
Corn (bus)..............................      1.89       2.47       2.90
Grain Sorghum (bus).....................      1.71       2.23       1.89
Barley (bus)............................      1.61       2.38       2.01
Oats (bus)..............................      1.16       1.50       1.27
Upland Cotton (lb)......................    0.5192     0.6883     0.5826
EL Staple Cotton (lb)...................    0.7965     1.0360     0.8761
Rice (cwt)..............................      6.50       9.23       7.81
Soybeans (bus)..........................      5.26       6.22       5.26
Oil Sunflower (lb)......................    0.0930     0.1060     0.0930
Nonoil Sunflower (lb)...................    0.0930     0.1390     0.1176
Canola (lb).............................    0.0930     0.1117     0.0945
Rapeseed (lb)...........................    0.0930     0.1183     0.1001
Safflower (lb)..........................    0.0930     0.1487     0.1259
Mustard Seed (lb).......................    0.0930     0.1390     0.1176
Flaxseed (lb)...........................    0.0930     0.0963     0.0930
Rye (bus)...............................     (\1\)  .........       2.80
Dry Peas (cwt)..........................     (\1\)  .........       7.00
Lentils (cwt)...........................     (\1\)  .........      12.00
Chickpeas (cwt).........................     (\1\)  .........      15.00
 
\1\ Not available.

  Mr. DORGAN. It is all about fairness and equity. Under the current 
program, even though all of the support prices are too low, wheat and 
feed grains are being treated unfairly and ought to be brought up to 
where they should be and we would have a right to expect them to be. I 
have included all of the significant numbers and support price 
proposals in the Record. I hope my colleagues will join me in seeing if 
we can at least take an interim step and pass this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 165

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Family Agriculture Recovery 
     and Market (FARM) Equity Act of 2001''.

     SEC 2. LOAN RATES FOR MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.

       Section 132 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7232) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 132. LOAN RATES FOR MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.

       ``(a) Wheat.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance loan 
     under section 131 for wheat shall be not less than--

[[Page S535]]

       ``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of wheat, as determined by the Secretary, during 
     the marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of 
     wheat, excluding the year in which the average price was the 
     highest and the year in which the average price was the 
     lowest; or
       ``(2) $3.14 per bushel.
       ``(b) Feed Grains.--
       ``(1) Corn.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance loan 
     under section 131 for corn shall be not less than--
       ``(A) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of corn, as determined by the Secretary, during the 
     marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of 
     corn, excluding the year in which the average price was the 
     highest and the year in which the average price was the 
     lowest; or
       ``(B) $2.09 per bushel.
       ``(2) Other feed grains.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the loan 
     rate for a marketing assistance loan under section 131 for 
     grain sorghum, barley, and oats, individually, shall be 
     established at such level as the Secretary determines is fair 
     and reasonable in relation to the rate at which loans are 
     made available for corn, taking into consideration the 
     feeding value of the commodity in relation to corn.
       ``(B) Minimum loan rates.--The loan rate for a marketing 
     assistance loan under section 131 for grain sorghum, barley, 
     and oats, individually, shall be not less than--
       ``(i) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of grain sorghum, barley, and oats, respectively, 
     as determined by the Secretary, during the marketing years 
     for the immediately preceding 5 crops of grain sorghum, 
     barley, and oats, respectively, excluding the year in which 
     the average price was the highest and the year in which the 
     average price was the lowest; or
       ``(ii)(I) in the case of grain sorghum, $1.89 per bushel;
       ``(II) in the case of barley, $2.01 per bushel; and
       ``(III) in the case of oats, $1.27 per bushel.
       ``(c) Upland Cotton.--
       ``(1) Loan rate.--Subject to paragraph (2), the loan rate 
     for a marketing assistance loan under section 131 for upland 
     cotton shall be established by the Secretary at such loan 
     rate, per pound, as will reflect for the base quality of 
     upland cotton, as determined by the Secretary, at average 
     locations in the United States, a rate that is not less than 
     the lesser of--
       ``(A) 85 percent of the average price (weighted by market 
     and month) of the base quality of cotton as quoted in the 
     designated United States spot markets during 3 years of the 
     5-year period ending July 31 of the year preceding the year 
     in which the crop is planted, excluding the year in which the 
     average price was the highest and the year in which the 
     average price was the lowest; or
       ``(B) 90 percent of the average, for the 15-week period 
     beginning July 1 of the year preceding the year in which the 
     crop is planted, of the 5 lowest-priced growths of the 
     growths quoted for Middling 1\3/32\-inch cotton C.I.F. 
     Northern Europe (adjusted downward by the average difference, 
     during the period April 15 through October 15 of the year 
     preceding the year in which the crop is planted, between the 
     average Northern European price quotation of that quality of 
     cotton and the market quotations in the designated United 
     States spot markets for the base quality of upland cotton), 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Limitations.--The loan rate for a marketing 
     assistance loan for upland cotton shall not be less than 
     $0.5826 per pound.
       ``(d) Extra Long Staple Cotton.--The loan rate for a 
     marketing assistance loan under section 131 for extra long 
     staple cotton shall be not less than--
       ``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of extra long staple cotton, as determined by the 
     Secretary, during 3 years of the 5-year period ending July 31 
     of the year preceding the year in which the crop is planted, 
     excluding the year in which the average price was the highest 
     and the year in which the average price was the lowest; or
       ``(2) $0.8768 per pound.
       ``(e) Rice.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance loan 
     under section 131 for rice shall be not less than--
       ``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of rice, as determined by the Secretary, during 3 
     years of the 5-year period ending July 31 of the year 
     preceding the year in which the crop is planted, excluding 
     the year in which the average price was the highest and the 
     year in which the average price was the lowest; or
       ``(2) $7.81 per hundredweight.
       ``(f) Oilseeds.--
       ``(1) Soybeans.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance 
     loan under section 131 for soybeans shall be not less than--
       ``(A) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of soybeans, as determined by the Secretary, during 
     the marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of 
     soybeans, excluding the year in which the average price was 
     the highest and the year in which the average price was the 
     lowest; or
       ``(B) $5.26 per bushel.
       ``(2) Sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard 
     seed, and flaxseed.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance 
     loan under section 131 for sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, 
     safflower, mustard seed, and flaxseed, individually, shall be 
     not less than--
       ``(A) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, 
     mustard seed, and flaxseed, respectively, as determined by 
     the Secretary, during the marketing years for the immediately 
     preceding 5 crops of sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, 
     safflower, mustard seed, and flaxseed, respectively, 
     excluding the year in which the average price was the highest 
     and the year in which the average price was the lowest; or
       ``(B)(i) in the case of oil sunflower seed, $0.093 per 
     pound;
       ``(ii) in the case of nonoil sunflower seed, $0.1176 per 
     pound;
       ``(iii) in the case of canola, $0.0945 per pound;
       ``(iv) in the case of rapeseed, $0.1001 per pound;
       ``(v) in the case of safflower, $0.1259 per pound;
       ``(vi) in the case of mustard seed, $0.1176 per pound; and
       ``(vii) in the case of flaxseed, $0.093 per pound.
       ``(3) Other oilseeds.--The loan rates for a marketing 
     assistance loan under section 131 for other oilseeds shall be 
     established at such level as the Secretary determines is fair 
     and reasonable in relation to the loan rate available for 
     soybeans, except that the rate for the oilseeds (other than 
     cottonseed) shall not be less than the rate established for 
     soybeans on a per-pound basis for the same crop.''.

     SEC. 3. NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS AND LOAN 
                   DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR DRY PEAS, LENTILS, 
                   CHICKPEAS, AND RYE.

       (a) Definition of Loan Commodity.--Section 102(10) of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7202(10)) is 
     amended by striking ``and oilseed'' and inserting ``oilseed, 
     dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye''.
       (b) Availability of Nonrecourse Loans.--Section 131(a) of 
     the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7231(a)) is 
     amended in the first sentence by inserting after ``each loan 
     commodity'' the following: ``(other than dry peas, lentils, 
     chickpeas, and rye) and each of the 2001 and 2002 crops of 
     dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye''.
       (c) Loan Rates.--Section 132 of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7232) (as amended by section 2) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Dry Peas, Lentils, Chickpeas, and Rye.--The loan rate 
     for a marketing assistance loan under section 131 for dry 
     peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye, individually, shall be not 
     less than--
       ``(1) 85 percent of the simple average price received by 
     producers of dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye, 
     respectively, as determined by the Secretary, during the 
     marketing years for the immediately preceding 5 crops of dry 
     peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye, respectively, excluding 
     the year in which the average price was the highest and the 
     year in which the average price was the lowest; or
       ``(2)(A) in the case of dry peas, $7.00 per hundredweight;
       ``(B) in the case of lentils, $12.00 per hundredweight;
       ``(C) in the case of chickpeas, $15.00 per hundredweight; 
     and
       ``(D) in the case of rye, $2.80 per bushel.''.
       (d) Repayment of Loans.--Section 134(a) of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7234(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and Oilseeds.--'' and inserting 
     ``Oilseeds, Dry Peas, Lentils, Chickpeas, and Rye.--''; and
       (2) by striking ``and oilseeds'' and inserting ``oilseeds, 
     dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, and rye''.
       (e) Payment Limitation.--Section 1001(2) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``contract commodities and oilseeds'' and inserting 
     ``contract commodities, oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, 
     chickpeas, and rye''.

     SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
     each of the 2001 and 2002 crops of a loan commodity (as 
     defined in section 102 of the Agricultural Market Transition 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 7202) (as amended by section 3(a))).
                                 ______