Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 90 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3533-H3539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

2001 CROP YEAR ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2213) to respond to the continuing economic crisis adversely
affecting American agricultural producers, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2213

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

SECTION 1. MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE.

(a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Agriculture
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, use $4,622,240,000 of funds of
the Commodity Credit Corporation to make a market loss
assistance payment to owners and producers on a farm that are
eligible for a final payment for fiscal year 2001 under a
production flexibility contract for the farm under the
Agriculture Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
(b) Amount.--The amount of assistance made available to
owners and producers on a farm under this section shall be
proportionate to the amount of the total contract payments
received by the owners and producers for fiscal year 2001
under a production flexibility contract for the farm under
the Agricultural Market Transition Act.

SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL OILSEEDS PAYMENT.

The Secretary shall use $423,510,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to make a supplemental payment
under section 202 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421 note) to producers of
the 2000 crop of oilseeds that previously received a payment
under such section.

SEC. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL PEANUT PAYMENT.

The Secretary shall use $54,210,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to provide a supplemental
payment under section 204(a) of the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421
note) to producers of quota peanuts or additional peanuts for
the 2000 crop year that previously received a payment under
such section. The Secretary shall adjust the payment rate
specified in such section to reflect the amount made
available for payments under this section.

SEC. 4. SUPPLEMENTAL TOBACCO PAYMENT.

(a) Supplemental Payment.--The Secretary shall use
$129,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
provide a supplemental payment under section 204(b) of the
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224;
7 U.S.C. 1421 note) to eligible persons (as defined in such
section) that previously received a payment under such
section.
(b) Special Rule for Georgia.--The Secretary may make
payments under this section to eligible persons in Georgia
only if the State of Georgia agrees to use the sum of
$13,000,000 to make payments at the same time, or
subsequently, to the same persons in the same manner as
provided for the Federal payments under this section, as
required by section 204(b)(6) of the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000.

SEC. 5. SUPPLEMENTAL WOOL AND MOHAIR PAYMENT.

The Secretary shall use $16,940,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to provide a supplemental
payment under section 814 of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted by Public Law
106-387), to producers of wool, and producers of mohair, for
the 2000 marketing year that previously received a payment
under such section. The Secretary shall adjust the payment
rate specified in such section to reflect the amount made
available for payments under this section.

[[Page H3534]]

SEC. 6. SUPPLEMENTAL COTTONSEED ASSISTANCE.

The Secretary shall use $84,700,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to provide supplemental
assistance under section 204(e) of the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421
note) to producers and first-handlers of the 2000 crop of
cottonseed that previously received assistance under such
section.

SEC. 7. SPECIALTY CROPS.

(a) Base State Grants.--The Secretary shall use $26,000,000
of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make grants
to the several States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to
be used to support activities that promote agriculture. The
amount of the grant shall be--
(1) $500,000 to each of the several States; and
(2) $1,000,000 to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(b) Grants for Value Of Production.--The Secretary shall
use $133,400,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to make a grant to each of the several States in an amount
that represents the proportion of the value of specialty crop
production in the State in relation to the national value of
specialty crop production, as follows:
(1) California, $63,320,000.
(2) Florida, $16,860,000.
(3) Washington, $9,610,000.
(4) Idaho, $3,670,000.
(5) Arizona, $3,430,000.
(6) Michigan, $3,250,000.
(7) Oregon, $3,220,000.
(8) Georgia, $2,730,000.
(9) Texas, $2,660,000.
(10) New York, $2,660,000.
(11) Wisconsin, $2,570,000.
(12) North Carolina, $1,540,000.
(13) Colorado, $1,510,000.
(14) North Dakota, $1,380,000.
(15) Minnesota, $1,320,000.
(16) Hawaii, $1,150,000.
(17) New Jersey, $1,100,000.
(18) Pennsylvania, $980,000.
(19) New Mexico, $900,000.
(20) Maine, $880,000.
(21) Ohio, $800,000.
(22) Indiana, $660,000.
(23) Nebraska, $640,000.
(24) Massachusetts, $640,000.
(25) Virginia, $620,000.
(26) Maryland, $500,000.
(27) Louisiana, $460,000.
(28) South Carolina, $440,000.
(29) Tennessee, $400,000.
(30) Illinois, $400,000.
(31) Oklahoma, $390,000.
(32) Alabama, $300,000.
(33) Delaware, $290,000.
(34) Mississippi, $250,000.
(35) Kansas, $210,000.
(36) Arkansas, $210,000.
(37) Missouri, $210,000.
(38) Connecticut, $180,000.
(39) Utah, $140,000.
(40) Montana, $140,000.
(41) New Hampshire, $120,000.
(42) Nevada, $120,000.
(43) Vermont, $120,000.
(44) Iowa, $100,000.
(45) West Virginia, $90,000.
(46) Wyoming, $70,000.
(47) Kentucky, $60,000.
(48) South Dakota, $40,000.
(49) Rhode Island, $40,000.
(50) Alaska, $20,000.
(c) Specialty Crop Priority.--As a condition on the receipt
of a grant under this section, a State shall agree to give
priority to the support of specialty crops in the use of the
grant funds.
(d) Specialty Crop Defined.--In this section, the term
``specialty crop'' means any agricultural crop, except wheat,
feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, and tobacco.

SEC. 8. COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

The Secretary shall use $10,000,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to make a grant to each of the
several States to be used by the States to cover direct and
indirect costs related to the processing, transportation, and
distribution of commodities to eligible recipient agencies.
The grants shall be allocated to States in the manner
provided under section 204(a) of the Emergency Food
Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7508(a)).

SEC. 9. TECHNICAL CORRECTION REGARDING INDEMNITY PAYMENTS FOR
COTTON PRODUCERS.

(a) Conditions on Payment to State.--Subsection (b) of
section 1121 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1999 (as contained in section 101(a) of division A of Public
Law 105-277 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note), and as amended by section
754 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001
(as enacted by Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-42), is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) Conditions on Payment to State.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall make the payment to the State of Georgia
under subsection (a) only if the State--
``(1) contributes $5,000,000 to the indemnity fund and
agrees to expend all amounts in the indemnity fund by not
later than January 1, 2002 (or as soon as administratively
practical thereafter), to provide compensation to cotton
producers as provided in such subsection;
``(2) requires the recipient of a payment from the
indemnity fund to repay the State, for deposit in the
indemnity fund, the amount of any duplicate payment the
recipient otherwise recovers for such loss of cotton, or the
loss of proceeds from the sale of cotton, up to the amount of
the payment from the indemnity fund; and
``(3) agrees to deposit in the indemnity fund the proceeds
of any bond collected by the State for the benefit of
recipients of payments from the indemnity fund, to the extent
of such payments.''.
(b) Additional Disbursements From the Indemnity Fund.--
Subsection (d) of such section is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Additional Disbursement to Cotton Ginners.--The State
of Georgia shall use funds remaining in the indemnity fund,
after the provision of compensation to cotton producers in
Georgia under subsection (a) (including cotton producers who
file a contingent claim, as defined and provided in section
5.1 of chapter 19 of title 2 of the Official Code of
Georgia), to compensate cotton ginners (as defined and
provided in such section) that--
``(1) incurred a loss as the result of--
``(A) the business failure of any cotton buyer doing
business in Georgia; or
``(B) the failure or refusal of any such cotton buyer to
pay the contracted price that had been agreed upon by the
ginner and the buyer for cotton grown in Georgia on or after
January 1, 1997, and had been purchased or contracted by the
ginner from cotton producers in Georgia;
``(2) paid cotton producers the amount which the cotton
ginner had agreed to pay for such cotton received from such
cotton producers in Georgia; and
``(3) satisfy the procedural requirements and deadlines
specified in chapter 19 of title 2 of the Official Code of
Georgia applicable to cotton ginner claims.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (c) of such section
is amended by striking ``Upon the establishment of the
indemnity fund, and not later than October 1, 1999, the'' and
inserting ``The''.

SEC. 10. INCREASE IN PAYMENT LIMITATIONS REGARDING LOAN
DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS AND MARKETING LOAN GAINS.

Notwithstanding section 1001(2) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(1)), the total amount of the payments
specified in section 1001(3) of that Act that a person shall
be entitled to receive for one or more contract commodities
and oilseeds under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) during the 2001 crop year may not exceed
$150,000.

SEC. 11. TIMING OF, AND LIMITATION ON, EXPENDITURES.

(a) Deadline for Expenditures.--All expenditures required
by this Act shall be made not later than September 30, 2001.
Any funds made available by this Act and remaining unexpended
by October 1, 2001, shall be deemed to be unexpendable, and
the authority provided by this Act to expend such funds is
rescinded effective on that date.
(b) Total Amount of Expenditures.--The total amount
expended under this Act may not exceed $5,500,000,000. If the
payments required by this Act would result in expenditures in
excess of such amount, the Secretary shall reduce such
payments on a pro rata basis as necessary to ensure that such
expenditures do not exceed such amount.

SEC. 12. REGULATIONS.

(a) Promulgation.--As soon as practicable after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Commodity
Credit Corporation, as appropriate, shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement this Act and the
amendments made by this Act. The promulgation of the
regulations and administration of this Act shall be made
without regard to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(b) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advocate passage of H.R. 2213, a bill to
provide economic assistance to farm producers for the 2001 crop year.
The current farm recession, in its 4th year, ranks among the deepest in
our Nation's history, along with the Great Depression, the post-World
War I and II recessions and the financial ruin of the 1980s.
There are many factors that contribute to this dismal situation.
First, energy prices have skyrocketed, pushing diesel fuel and
fertilizer to more than twice last year's prices. Second, overseas
markets continue the slump that started with the Asian financial
crisis, and that has been compounded by the steadily increasing
strength of the dollar abroad.

[[Page H3535]]

USDA estimates that the value of the dollar is up to 25 percent
relative to our customers' currencies and up 40 percent relative to our
competitors' currencies, making our farm commodities significantly less
marketable in overseas markets. Finally, tariff charged in our
agricultural exports remain high, averaging 5 times those levied by the
U.S.
Clearly, additional assistance for our farmers is needed. H.R. 2213
makes a good start on providing such assistance. With the help of the
Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), in
this year's budget, Congress made available funding for fiscal year
2001 and fiscal year 2002 specifically to address the need for the
assistance in the 2001 crop year.
The legislation before us today makes $5.5 billion available for that
purpose. In my opinion, this amount is not sufficient to meet the needs
of our producers, and I intend to work further as this bill moves
forward through the legislative process to improve that message. But
today the important point is to move the process along, because the
fiscal year 2001 funds will expire unless delivered to hard-pressed
farmers by the end of September, it is imperative that a bill be sent
to the President for signature before the August recess.
To ensure that outcome, the House must move the legislation this
week. Despite its current imperfections, farmers need House passage of
H.R. 2213 today.
The Committee on Agriculture is now in the process of writing a new
multiyear farm bill that will end the need for these annual emergency
packages. We expect to bring that bill to the floor before the end of
the year and hope to have it in place for next year's crop. But today
we are dealing with the immediate crisis facing farmers in this year's
crop, and that is why I am asking my colleagues to support passage of
H.R. 2213.

{time} 1145

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that there are
some misconceptions currently being spread about the bill, including
one suggesting that H.R. 2213 will extend the Northeast Dairy Compact.
This is simply not the case.
First of all, dairy compacts are not within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Agriculture and, therefore, are not germane to any
legislation that our committee would report. Second, there are simply
no dairy provisions of any kind in H.R. 2213, as amended.
When I introduced the bill originally, it did include a simple
extension of the dairy price support program due to expire at the end
of this year, but even that provision has been removed from the amended
version.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill even though I, too, wished we could
do more. At the outset, let me recognize the work of the gentleman from
Texas (Chairman Combest) and state for the record that I agree with him
that American agriculture is in need of immediate assistance, and that
producers of our food and fiber are at risk.
Last year crop prices were at a 27-year low for soybeans, a 25-year
low for cotton, a 14-year low for wheat and corn and an 8-year low for
rice. Very little recovery has occurred since that time. The need for
the $5.5 billion in assistance provided by this bill is so great that a
doubling of this amount could easily be utilized.
Because this is the fourth year in a row that we have provided ad hoc
assistance to compensate for low commodity prices, however, I consider
it crucial that we provide aid with a view toward the long term.
While the budget should provide us the authority to improve our
commodity programs, there are a couple of reasons why the amount made
available in the budget will soon appear insufficient. First, aside
from amounts in the bill before us, the budget provides $73.4 billion
to add to our baseline over 10 years. During the course of the
Committee on Agriculture's hearings, however, representatives of
agriculture have responsibly argued for several times that amount.
Second, the budget is not ironclad. The Committee on Agriculture has
a budget allocation for fiscal year 2002, but not for the succeeding
fiscal years. The remaining $66 billion is only available to the extent
that the on-budget surplus is greater than the Medicare surplus. Our
ability to address agriculture's long-term need is now very sensitive
to any deterioration in the overall budget surplus.
The reality of the tight budget situation we faced was recently made
abundantly clear by a letter from the administration. Prior to the
markup of this economic assistance, the OMB Director advised that, if
the committee surpassed the $5.5 billion, he would recommend the
President not sign the bill.
A bare majority of my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture
agreed with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and me that we needed
to save every penny we could to draft a responsible long-term farm
bill.
I am proud to say that, by adopting our amendment, the Committee on
Agriculture has faced its responsibility to prioritize agriculture's
needs within the budget. Our chairman presided over a full debate with
the utmost fairness. For those of us who were strong advocates for
agriculture, we arrived at a difficult decision.
The bill before the House today provides a reasonable response to our
producers who are suffering from the continued slump in the farm
economy. Assistance is provided in a very clear way. Take the aid
provided for the most recent crop and prorate the payments to equal
$5.5 billion. I repeat, assistance is provided in a very clear way.
Take the aid provided in the most recent crop and prorate the payments
to equal $5.5 billion. Funds will be disbursed to producers quickly and
simply.
While I would have preferred alternative ways to deliver this
assistance, we are constrained in this manner because the assistance
must be provided by September 30.
We also need to analyze all fiscal year 2002 options at the same time
in order to provide the right long- and short-term policy mix. Many
specialty crops that desire additional assistance over that provided in
the bill can only be assisted in fiscal year 2002 money. We can provide
such assistance, but it must be provided fairly and consistently in
keeping with our long-term strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot disagree with those who say that the $5.5
billion is inadequate; however, this is all we can afford at the
moment. As we pass this bill, it is crucial that we immediately move
toward an improved and reliable long-term policy that benefits farmers
and taxpayers alike.
I urge the passage of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill even though I wish we could do more.
At the outset, let me recognize the work of Chairman Combest and
state for the record that I agree with him that American agriculture is
in need of immediate assistance and that the producers of our food and
fiber are at risk. Last year, crop prices were at a 27-year low for
soybeans, a 25-year low for cotton, a 14-year low for wheat and corn
and an 8-year low for rice. Very little recovery has occurred since
that time. The need for the $5.5 billion in assistance provided by this
bill is so great that a doubling of this amount could easily be
utilized.
Because this is the fourth year in a row that we have provided ad hoc
assistance to compensate for low commodity prices, however, I consider
it crucial that we provide aid with a view toward the long term.
While the Budget should provide us the authority to improve our
commodity programs, there are a couple of reasons why the amount made
available will soon appear insufficient:
First, aside from amounts in the bill before us, the Budget provides
$73.4 billion to add to our baseline over ten years. During the course
of the Agriculture Committee's hearings, however, representatives of
agriculture have responsibly argued for several times that amount.
Second, the Budget is not ironclad. The Agriculture Committee has a
budget allocation for FY 2002 but not for the succeeding fiscal years.
The remaining $66 billion is only available to the extent that the on-
budget surplus is greater than the Medicare surplus. Our ability to
address agriculture's long-term need is now very sensitive to ANY
deterioration in the overall budget surplus.
The reality of the tight budget situation we face was recently made
abundantly clear by a letter from the Administration. Prior to the
markup of this economic assistance, the OMB Director advised that if
the Committee surpassed the $5.5 billion, he would recommend that the
President not sign the bill.

[[Page H3536]]

A bare majority of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee agreed
with Mr. Boehner and me that we needed to save every penny we could to
draft a responsible long-term farm bill. I am proud to say that by
adopting our amendment, the Agriculture Committee has faced its
responsibility to prioritize agriculture's needs within the budget. Our
Chairman presided over a full debate with the utmost fairness and, for
those of us who are strong advocates for agriculture we arrived at a
difficult result.
The bill before the House today provides a reasonable response to our
producers who are suffering from the continued slump in the farm
economy. Assistance is provided in a very clear way: take the aid
provided for the most recent crop and prorate the payments to equal
$5.5 billion. Funds will be disbursed to producers quickly and simply.
While I would have preferred alternative ways to deliver this
assistance, we are constrained to this manner because the assistance
must be provided by September 30.
We also need to analyze all FY 2002 options at the same time in order
to provide the right long and short-term policy mix. Many specialty
crops that desire additional assistance over that provided in the bill
can only be assisted with FY 2002 money. We can provide such
assistance, but it must be provided fairly and consistently in keeping
with our long-term strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot disagree with those who say that $5.5 billion
is inadequate, however this is all we can afford at the moment. As we
pass this bill, it is crucial that we immediately move toward an
improved and reliable long-term policy that benefits farmers and
taxpayers alike.
I urge the passage of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2213, the
Fiscal Year 2001 Economic Assistance Act. It provides $5.5 billion in
markets loss payments and other agriculture assistance.
I am pleased that the Committee on the Budget was able to work hand
in hand with the Committee on Agriculture to make this bill possible.
Recognizing the needs of farmers, the Committee on Budget reported
and the House passed a budget resolution that revised the allocations
and budgetary totals for the current fiscal year to accommodate $5.5
billion in additional emergency agricultural assistance for the crop
year of 2001. We budgeted for this emergency. This fits within the
budget. It is responsible.
All the Committee on the Budget asked was that the Committee on
Agriculture produce a straightforward bill that avoided accounting
gimmicks and reserved sufficient funds to meet future crop year needs
and permanently reform agricultural assistance programs so we can move
away from this Band-Aid approach of the past 3 years. H.R. 2213 more
than up holds the Committee on Agriculture's part of this bargain.
As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I have the privilege
of reporting to my colleagues that this bill is within the budget. I
commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest), the gentleman from
Georgia (Chairman Chambliss), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm),
ranking member, for their hard work on this and all the members of the
Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
allowing me to speak on this bill.
I know it has been hard for the members of the Committee on
Agriculture, but I am personally disappointed that there appears to be
no funding for the conservation programs in the agricultural
supplemental. This is especially troubling in light of the fact that it
appears that the Committee on Appropriations plans to sharply reduce
funding for our major conservation program in the next fiscal year,
including the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program and Farmland Protection Program.
Only 5 percent of the USDA funding rewards voluntary efforts for
protecting our drinking water supplies, to provide habitat for
wildlife, protect open spaces.
There are many programs where farmers voluntarily want to come
forward, but as a result of declining funding levels for conservation
programs, three out of four farmers, ranchers and foresters are
rejected when they seek cost-sharing to improve the quality of our
drinking water supplies; 9 out of 10 are rejected when they offer to
sell development rights to help combat sprawl and protect farmland;
half of our farmers and ranchers and foresters are rejected when they
seek basic technical assistance. Sadly, we are not stepping forward to
help the incredibly productive farmland that surrounds our metropolitan
area, the urban-influenced farmland.
Mr. Speaker, as we struggle with declining amounts of money because
of some decisions that we have made, that, frankly, I think some of us
are hoping that people recognize were inappropriate, we need to make
sure that we are dealing with efforts to equip and ensure that we
maintain the agricultural base.
This is an opportunity for a win-win to protect the environment, to
enhance the vast majority of small farmers that are at risk, and to
make sure that we are preserving water quality supplies. I am hopeful
that we can do better in the future.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
(Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity
to speak today, and I thank him for his leadership on this and other
matters relative to the agriculture community in our country.
I rise in strong support of this bill. I would say to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) I share the same concerns that he does
about conservation, and I hope we can address that to a greater extent
in the farm bill.
But what we are doing today is coming forward with a market
assistance package, and I emphasize that because it is not a disaster
bill. A market assistance package is necessary for our farmers because,
for the fourth year in a row, we are facing low commodity prices all
across the spectrum.
This bill is responsible. It addresses the needs of producers. It
puts an amount of money in the pocket of producers as quickly as we can
do it. Our folks need that relief now. At the same time, if the
American people are going to be assured that they are going to continue
to have quality food products at low-commodity prices, we need to pass
this bill today.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, but I also want to
express some disappointment with the lack of any type of funding for
conservation programs within this farm supplemental bill for 2001.
While there is no doubt that our Nation's farmers, ranchers and
foresters are struggling financially, this measure merely continues the
failed economic policies of the current farm bill, directs cash
transfers that many of us believe distort the marketplace and drives
commodity prices even further down.
The next farm bill, which the House is currently considering, must be
more inclusive and provide creative new revenue streams to assist our
Nation's family farmers. It is my hope that voluntary incentive-based
conservation programs which provide landowners with much-needed revenue
while also assisting them in meeting soil, air and water environmental
compliance is a part of the new farm bill.
For instance, programs such as Wetlands Reserve, Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Programs and the Farmland Protection Program not only help
our farmers to promote preservation of open space, habitat for wildlife
and improve water quality, but they also increase farm profitability.
Two-thirds of America's farmers do not benefit from any traditional
income support programs under the current farm bill. Furthermore, more
than 90 percent of USDA payments go to only one-third of America's
farmers

[[Page H3537]]

who produce commodity crops. For example, States such as California and
Florida receive less than 3 cents from USDA for every dollar they earn.
Conservation payments provide an important source of funding that
allows farmers throughout all regions of the country to retain their
land while providing benefits to society, including cleaner drinking
water and improved recreational opportunities.
Currently, funding levels are insufficient to meet the demands of
conservation programs. Three out of every four farmers, ranchers and
private forest landowners are turned away when they seek to participate
and help protect habitat and improve the quality of drinking water
supplies through these land conservation programs.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the conservation funding aspect becomes a major
feature of the next farm bill. I look forward to working with the
leadership on that.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, agriculture is Montana's number one
industry, but with the cost of farm production at an all-time high and
farm incomes sagging, I am deeply concerned about agriculture's future
in our State.
H.R. 2213 will provide much-needed help to Montana producers, but the
bill fails in many ways. The assistance level provided for in this
legislation is not sufficient to address needs of many families this
year.
H.R. 2213 fails to address the needs of dairy farmers, sugarcane
growers, those who graze their wheat, barley, and oats, as well as
producers who are denied marketing loan assistance because they do not
have an AMTA contract.
Members who supported the $5.5 billion in assistance at the committee
level argued that a cut in funds to producers this year was necessary
to save funds for the new farm bill, but I fear that many producers in
my State will now have to face the reality that they may not make it
for the next farm bill.
While this bill is far from perfect, it is a first step in keeping
Congress' commitment to stand by American farmers and ranchers until a
permanent safety net is in place.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) and the
staff for all their hard work on behalf of America's rural communities.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, dramatic increases in energy costs have hurt
everybody, especially in the agriculture industry. Today, right now,
farmers in my district, a lot of them, are going bankrupt, clearly not
able to keep up with their energy bills.
We need to encourage more domestic production of oil and gas, but
that is for the future. We will not solve the crisis of today.
I am not really not here to point fingers, assign blame for
skyrocketing energy prices, but I am here on behalf of family farmers
who do seek solutions. They need our help now.
Despite repeated appeals from my colleagues and myself, this
Congress, this leadership has ignored the plight of ordinary citizens
who are suffering this energy crisis. Let us face the fact that some
farmers and ranchers have seen their gas bills double and triple over
the last year, and this is through no fault of their own.
Our economy depends on agriculture, and especially Mississippi,
because we are still a rural economy.
This may not be a natural disaster like a tornado or flood, but it is
a disaster just the same. It is an economic disaster that threatens the
very existence of our farmers.
If we cannot see fit to address these needs through supplemental
funding, I challenge the Congress to take up the issue separately.

{time} 1200

I have introduced H.R. 478, the Family Farmers' Emergency Energy
Assistance Act, which will provide immediate and long-term emergency
assistance to our farmers and ranchers, including crop and greenhouse
growers and poultry and livestock producers.
H.R. 478 will authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide
grants to help farmers and ranchers to deal immediately with financial
pressures caused by this crisis. This bill would also make low-interest
loans available to help deal with the energy crisis for the months
ahead.
H.R. 478 defines what constitutes an ``energy emergency'' and lays
out a formula that will work. H.R. 478 is a farm energy crisis bill
that will ensure that agriculture producers suffering an energy crisis
will get assistance.
I am calling upon our leaders in Congress to move this emergency
assistance bill quickly to passage. In a world where reliable energy
costs are tantamount to success or failure, we should remember the pain
rural America is enduring while we stand here and debate.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the
farmers of my home State of Mississippi and for this legislation.
Could we do more? Yes. Should we do more? I hope by the end of the
day, by the time this Senate takes this up and it goes to the
President, that there will be more. In terms of real dollars,
Mississippi farmers are facing their 4th year of prices that have not
been this low since the Great Depression.
I look forward to working with the committee and the chairman to look
at ways in the farm bill that we can have long-term solutions to crises
that come up, not only in our commodities and crops, but for farmers
who are in other areas, such as poultry. We need to find ways so that
if we do have an energy crisis or spike that we can meet those needs,
whether through grants or loans, so that they too can manage their farm
income in a way that is predictable and gives them certainty. We need
to help our farmers avoid the bankruptcies that we are seeing today in
places across my district and in the Southeast.
As we continue to get the emergency assistance and the long-term
care, I look forward to working, as chairman of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus Waterfowl Task Force, in getting the conservation
titles of the farm bill in order for the good it does both for our
environment and for our farmers.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the
chairman of the committee for this supplemental, which goes a long way
to preserving the rural legacy of this United States, understanding the
fact that every year we lose hundreds of farms all across the Nation.
This injection of dollars will go a long way into helping make our
farms sustainable and, to a large extent, if we work the right way,
making those farms profitable.
I would also ask the Chairman, as we move through the rest of this
session, to understand that not only do the AMTA payments make a
difference, but the conservation title of the farm bill goes a long way
into diversifying a great deal of what happens in our ag communities.
In our ag communities, there is literally an ag corridor; and we need
to keep it from being fragmented. In our ag communities, there is also
a habitat conservation corridor for wildlife upon which many farmers
depend on diversifying their ag businesses. Whether it is hunting or
fishing, the conservation title goes a long way into preserving the
rural legacy of this country.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the
agricultural assistance package, but I must state flatly for the record
that I was extremely disappointed last week when this much-needed
package was reduced from $6.5 billion to $5.5 billion in committee. A
majority of the Committee on Agriculture chose not to support me or the
chairman in a package that was equal to last year's assistance. This
billion dollar cut will cost Oklahoma producers 10 cents a bushel for
wheat and effectively kills the LDP graze-out program for 2002. That is
unacceptable.
This is the worst time to be cutting funding for agricultural
producers. Commodity prices remain low, input prices are increasing and
continue to increase dramatically. If anything, we should be increasing
our funding for

[[Page H3538]]

these programs. Yes, this assistance package is a good first step. It
is insufficient to meet the needs of agricultural producers, especially
in Oklahoma, but at least it is headed in the right direction.
I want to assure my friends and colleagues here on the floor that
while I think this will help producers across the country, and
particularly in Oklahoma too, that I intend to work with the other body
to ensure that the cuts made last week by the Stenholm-Boehner
amendment are restored and that we provide our producers with that
minimum $6.5 billion.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me this time, and I rise to support this bill but to express
my disappointment that the House Committee on Agriculture voted last
week to reduce the supplemental aid to farmers in the supplemental farm
package last week. I opposed the amendment by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) to reduce the supplemental aid to $5.5 billion and
supported the chairman's proposal to provide $6.5 billion in support;
the same level as in prior years.
Our farmers are struggling, and we must provide them with the aid
they need. This funding bill is better than no assistance, but we
really needed that additional billion dollars to help our farmers. I
consider this a first step towards ensuring that we provide our farmers
the support they need.
We continue to wrestle with historically low prices, and yet this
year, in our part of the country, we are having very poor planting
conditions and are expecting to have lower yields than in prior years.
So we need more aid to maintain the same level as prior years, not
less. Now is certainly not the time to cut it, particularly with energy
costs driving up the cost of fertilizer and everything else.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to help the chairman and other committee
members in an effort to restore funding as the process moves forward.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today for eighth district farmers in North Carolina to
support H.R. 2213, the 2001 Crop Year Economic Assistance Act. I want
to thank the chairman for his continued leadership and diligence in
bringing assistance to our Nation's farmers who are in need.
I am supportive of this bill, though I support the $6.5 even more;
and I hope it will bring some relief to our farmers plagued by low
commodity prices, rising energy costs, drought, and a slow world
economy. USDA estimates that without government assistance, farmers'
income could drop to historical lows, so it is imperative we act now.
H.R. 2213 does not provide the same level of assistance as previous
years but I urge my colleagues' support and it is my sincere hope that
we can provide more adequate assistance as we move through the
legislative process.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I want to thank him for his hard work and leadership in
speeding this crop assistance package to the floor today. Family
farmers across Indiana appreciate the gentleman's aggressiveness.
Mr. Speaker, by providing $5.5 billion in economic assistance, this
farm bill represents a much-needed first step in keeping Congress'
promise to America's farmers and ranchers, but it is only a first step.
It is said that the sower sows in expectation, and this farm bill
fails to meet the expectation of American farmers in at least two
respects. First, the assistance level it provides is not sufficient to
address the total needs of farmers and ranchers; and, second, the
bill's scope is too narrow, leaving many needs completely unaddressed.
At a time when real net cash income on the farm is at its lowest
level since the Great Depression, it is not time to cut supplemental
aid to farmers. Although I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a
first step toward helping our Nation's farmers, I am deeply
disappointed that this bill leaves out $1 billion in farm aid for only
a few short-term benefits.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the chairman, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) for continuing to move this process along.
We all know that we have great difficulty in ag country. We have low
commodity prices, we have higher fuel costs, and the pressure is on
farmers across the country and has been. Until we open more markets for
our farmers, this pressure will continue to be there because our
farmers continue to out-produce their competitors around the world.
There has been a lot said here about the size of this package. As the
author of the amendment, along with my good friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I believe that the $5.5 billion, as allocated by
the budget, is a sufficient amount of money for aid now. Would I like
to do more? Of course, I would like to do more. But the fact is we just
went through a budget process and allocated $5.5 billion for this
year's emergency assistance to farmers. To go back on that now opens
the door to the other body to raise the number even higher. I think
what we have done here is the fiscally responsible thing to do.
Secondly, we are about to go through the new farm bill. We are going
to have a major debate about how to reallocate those resources
dedicated in the budget to the new farm bill. Let us not stick our
fingers into the pie and take some of next year's money for this year's
problems.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, American agriculture is in a
predicament. Should we go to the free market system and say survival of
the fittest in an international market and price for food and fiber?
It is complicated by a couple of situations. One is the fact that
other countries, such as Europe, subsidize their farmers up to five
times as much as we subsidize our farmers.
How interested are we in maintaining a vital agricultural economy in
the United States? I would suggest to my colleagues that that ability
to produce food is even more important than the production of energy
for our national security. With our dependency on imported energy, we
have seen what can happen when OPEC decides to hold back. Think what
might happen with food.
Right now, farmers are faced with low commodity prices. A 27-year low
for soybeans, 25-year low for cotton, a 14-year low for wheat and corn,
an 8-year low for rice. Over the past 3 years, net cash income fell in
real dollars to its lowest point since the depression.
Now is the time that we have to make the decision of standing up for
the survival of American agriculture. I would just suggest that farmers
need help to survive. In addition to low commodity prices we have seen
increased fuel costs of $2.4 billion over the last year because of
higher energy prices.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding
me this time. It is with concern today that I rise on the House floor.
This is an important piece of legislation. We have worked hard at
making certain that the farmers of Kansas and across the country have
access to additional resources this year to tide them over; and yet the
actions of our House Committee on Agriculture last week, I think, are
inadequate in reaching that goal.

[[Page H3539]]

I voted against the passage of this bill from the committee, and yet
I know it is important for the process to continue. We have hope that
additional dollars will be placed in this legislation before this bill
returns from the Senate.
Two weeks ago I spoke on the House floor about the difficulties
facing farmers in my State. I talked about corn prices at $1.89 and
gasoline at $1.93. That does not work. Combines and custom cutters are
working their way across Kansas now. Wheat prices dropped 25 cents last
month; and when I looked at the board this morning, in Dodge City wheat
was $2.71, down another 4 cents.
Assistance today is important. Many of my farmers will not be able to
wait around and see what happens with the farm bill and the
improvements that we hope to make in agricultural policy in this
Congress unless they have some dollars to tide them over now. The
crisis is real, and the consequences of our failure to act are
significant.
I joined the chairman in supporting an increase for assistance for
farmers. Our position failed by one vote, 24 to 23. So even within the
House Committee on Agriculture, there is disagreement in the best way
to help producers. However, I think now is not the time to hold up this
bill over our previous disagreements. It is time for those of us
concerned about agriculture and rural America to come together and to
work on behalf of our Nation's farmers and ranchers.
I look forward to that process continuing, and I look forward to
working with my chairman and the ranking member to see that good things
happen in Kansas and American agriculture.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time; and really for the benefit of some of my colleagues who are not
from farm country, I thought I would like to take a minute today to
talk about what is happening to agriculture here in the United States
and around the world. Because it is easy for some people to say the
problem is the farm bill, the problem is freedom to farm.
It may well be true that some of the problems we face in agriculture
today were exacerbated by the last farm bill. But the truth of the
matter is what we are into now is the 4th consecutive year of worldwide
record production.

{time} 1215

Mr. Speaker, I think against that backdrop with any farm policy in
the United States, our farmers would be facing a tough year as it
relates to our commodities.
The second thing we have to appreciate, in Europe we see huge
subsidies for agriculture. Beyond that, we have permitted, we have
allowed our trading competitors to subsidize their exports to the tune
of $6 billion while we limit ourselves to $200 million. We have put
ourselves and our farmers behind the eight ball relative to our trade
policy and relative to our agriculture policy. Ultimately that is all
coming together.
There is a desperate need in agriculture today for some kind of help.
We are here today, and the Committee on the Budget has responded
appropriately. The bill in front of us today is the right answer.
Ultimately there will be negotiations between the House and Senate and
the White House, and hopefully this can be plussed up. There are
serious problems in agriculture, most of which are not controllable by
our farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good bill, and I hope all of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in supporting this
legislation today.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I associate
myself with all of the remarks saying we should do more; but I would
also point out that this amount of money today is within the budget
that was passed that we have agreed to live under this year. I think
that is a significant point. And also, as the chairman pointed out in
his opening remarks, time is of the essence.
Mr. Speaker, we must have this bill to the President for his
signature by August 1 if we are to have any hope of dealing with the
multitude of problems that this bill is designed to help.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to pass this bill today and
move the process forward, and encourage the other body to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) and appreciate the good working relationship that we
have. Our committee works on behalf of American agriculture, I think,
on a bipartisan basis as well as any committee in the Congress.
It is vitally important, and I strongly urge my colleagues who have
any reservation about the level of this funding to move forward with
this suspension to allow the House to have completed its action so that
we make for certain that the $5.5 billion which was established in the
budget resolution is in fact eligible to be paid to farmers by the end
of the fiscal year of September 30. I think it also sends a message to
farmers that in fact there is some assistance on the way at a very
critically needed time.
Mr. Speaker, to the Members who spoke of the committee's action in
the next few weeks in reporting a farm bill, I will say that we have
heard them and all others. This will be a comprehensive farm bill. It
will have a strong conservation title, as some have indicated is
needed. It is an area that we are looking at very carefully. It is
something that we will be trying to craft to deal with all aspects of
American agriculture, and we will be spending a great deal of time on
it. It is the intent of our committee to report a bill by the beginning
of the August recess so that consideration for a full farm bill in a
much-needed sector of the American economy that is suffering
tremendously can be moved forward; and that we will be able to send a
message to American agriculture that there is help on the way.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest, the intensity, and passion of
all of my colleagues on the committee.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2213 will provide the much needed help
that my farmers in the Second Congressional District need today. The
$5.5 billion is not sufficient to address all the farming needs, but it
goes a long way in helping our family farmers. Input costs have
skyrocketed for every one including our farming community. I hope this
supplemental bill moves quickly to help alleviate some of these costs.
I am happy with the way our peanut farmers concerns have been
addressed in this bill, $25.83 a ton for quota peanuts and $13.55 for
additional peanuts will help ease the burden that our peanut farmers
face today.
I am glad that we continue as we should standby our American farmers.
This will provide immediate relief while our Committee continues to
work hard on drafting the new Farm bill.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2213 and speedily get these
funds to our farmers.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2213, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________